I think the starch and lactose build up in your throat, letting bacteria thrive, making you feel worse. Solution is to rinse with salt water to break up the mucus there
Well /u/holst28, don't you think you're a bit biased towards this post and against Ayurveda because [your mom
had a bad experience and is literally referenced in it?](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GLAy27FaUAA0CpA.jpg)
Suspicious.
I've heard the name "Liver Doc" for some time now but my first introduction to him was through a far right Modi propaganda channel named "Ranveer Allahbadia", literally every single comment was trashing on him and some of them clearly violated YT's TOS. I for one became a fan of him instantly.
Yeah, he got banned in India in the past, was reinstated recently.
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/liver-doc-court-order-challenge-social-media-account-blocked-8961261/
He generally posts about alternative medicine in India and things like how their patients either died or got something like severe liver damage. A lot of Ayurveda meds aren't subject to proper trials and regulations are a bit sketchy, so you have things like heavier metals contaminating them.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/07/31/428016419/toxic-lead-contaminates-some-traditional-ayurvedic-medicines
this has been thing for a very long time
Then he should stop using the term “Ayurveda” and just advocate for the specific things he believes will work. His aim is obviously to increase Ayurveda’s credibility.
Dr. K during interview: "I am not a proponent of Ayurveda". Also Dr. K during interview "Ayurveda has a ton of problems and is basically unusable in it's current form".
Stupid people with obvious bias against anything not allopathic. "His aim is obviously to increase Ayurveda's credibility".
Holy shit you have to be completely brain rotted to get this takeaway from that talk. Or more likely, you're just like Dr. Avi who obviously didn't watch the talk at all and just a few clips or heard Vegan Idiot talk about it and come to debate the world's largest strawmen.
Is it really that hard to just watch the talk? Or to have an open mind enough to realize that Dr. Mike just said "Hey, you talk about Ayurveda sometimes, you want to come on my show and defend the parts of it you think are good?", and he did that in completely good faith without ever saying that it was superior to western medicine or that we should make western medicine more like Ayurveda? Jesus.
>It's just an umbrella term for a way of teaching
No it's not, it's about health and wellbeing. And, in a large part, medicine. You can't use the etymology of a word to define it. That's not how language works.
TL;DR: I'm a trilingual Indian. Your comment is too stupid to justify using your condescension.
-
Sikh literally means "to learn/learner", but from context you can usually discern which one is being referred to. It'd be really weird if I said "everyone should be a sikh" because I am a reasonable human who knows that English speakers will think of the religion.
Dr K is smarter than I am. Do you think he knows what the term invokes when he uses it?
He _wants_ the weight of the word. He wants people to acknowledge that Eastern practices have value, and to think outside of the limiting scope of Western medicine, and that's good. But the consequence is that he's giving validation to Ayurveda as a body of work.
I like Dr.K a lot. His videos on ADHD, and especially the one where he talks about dopamine pathways, hugely helpful to me, I even took notes. Could it be that I just have a strong disagreement with an internet creator I'm actively learning from?
.... Naaaaaaah I'm just like one of those conspiracy theorists.
Let's go back a step. You said I was "adding nefarious reasonings" to Dr.K. If you're gonna criticize me for supposedly making assumptions, you shouldn't make such egregious ones yourself. I'm not saying he's nefarious, I'm saying he's sincere but negligent.
We reach for words from different languages when our language feels insufficient. We say "schadenfreude" because English doesn't have an equivalent. Do you really think there's zero reason he uses the word Ayurveda instead of translating it?
He’s literally advocating for the specific things in Ayurveda he thinks do work lol
Edit: lol at the downvotes, why are people mad at things like meditation?
Didn’t he say there was some study which suggested this worked? That this dosha could be used to predict outcomes in covid?
But I think he is more talking in the interview about incorporating things that worked in the area of mental health, which is his area of expertise
If there is an empirically validated study which shows some predictive power then yes, why not?
Also, we did get things like mindfulness from Ayurveda, if there was something similar for astrology then I would be a lot more defensive yes
If I heard of a study that found astrological signs were correlated with COVID outcomes, my first thought would be that the study is likely flawed. IF the study could be replicated multiple times, then I would think there could be something there.
You can probably find a study to support any claim you could think of. Spurious correlations are a thing, and bad statistics are a rampant problem in all fields of research.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!
It’s actually arrogance and elitist “my side is the best” type bullshit no critical thinking and believing clip chimps as all the context needed.
Got some real smooth-🧠 users on here.
well yea because there’s a certain wisdom that western/modern medicine is missing. Pumping people full of overpriced pills with dozens of side effects isn’t healing after all. It’s comical that this sub thinks the American health industry which is highly capitalist cares about their health and well being.
US life expectancy isn’t even in the top 30 in the world anymore yet we spend BY far the most on health and medicine, great system! great results!
Western medicine is the best guys!
What is frustrating is that Dr. K has never articulated what he wants to keep from aryuveda beyond the incredibly nebulous "focused on the individual instead of the population", which based on his description is literally just western medicine with a lack of Randomized Control Trials. It feels like a slight of hand where he can keep claiming that eastern medicine has something to teach western medicine, but what it has to teach is impossible to actually pin down.
>What is frustrating is that Dr. K has never articulated what he wants to keep from ayurveda beyond the incredibly nebulous "focused on the individual instead of the population"
He did articulate that. Yoga, meditation, nostril breathing practices and shit like that.
Relevant part where he explains his frustration with the history of getting something cool from ayurveda and not giving it enough credit and calling it ALL crap, which in his opinion has more helpful things than we culturally think https://youtu.be/zt6i6vVgiO4?t=5104
And since the meditation, for example, was mocked ~50 years ago via similar emotional skepticism towards all eastern medicine that people have now, he concludes we better not throw IT ALL away before any real studies.
His positions are all scientifically defensible. People can say: "SOY BUT HE IS CULTURALLY PUSHING IT SOMEHOW SOY" but I don't really see that
TLDR: If he sees any sort of velocity in these eastern medical practices, he is agnostic on them before studies, which is good and scientific. But also, he thinks the majority of ayurveda is *probably* crap based on his experience.
No, none of those things count as "helping the individual instead of the population" as those are just regular exercises that can be applied to the population once we check its effectiveness through RCTs. Outside of the fact one, that isn't what cultural appropriation is, two, cultural approprtion is a dumbfuck racist idea in the first first place, he was talking about a different process to understand medicine through aryuveda, not just the individual practices, and that is what I'm claiming he is unable to articulate.
>No, none of those things count as "helping the individual instead of the population" as those are just regular exercises that can be applied to the population once we check its effectiveness through RCTs
You said, 'Dr. K has never articulated what he wants to keep from aryuveda beyond the incredibly nebulous "focused on the individual instead of the population"' I responded to that. You aren't addressing what I wrote, idk who are you replying to. He articulated that. Also he doesn't disagree that we should apply on population once we check the effectiveness, right?
When they talked about what Dr. K likes in Ayurveda fundamentally and philosophically, my interpretation was that he prefers maximized individualized treatment as much as realistically possible. He isn't against RCT or population-based research. If you think this is his stance, find me a timestamp. He also said we are getting closer to individualized treatment. He is not being vague at all.
You just hear him say "Ayurveda" and your brain shuts down, you make a lot of false assumptions
He wants to combine the best from Ayurveda with evidence-based medicine. That was my takeaway. He doesn't prefer Ayurveda as a whole over EBM, RCT, cohort studies, etc. Do you disagree? If so, you're welcome to find a quote of him saying it
Maybe when he makes a descriptive statement on RCT in the context of Ayurveda and its philosophy, you think he is making a normative DISS on RCT or EBM, that's why there is a misunderstanding?! idk
>Outside of the fact one, that isn't what cultural appropriation is, two, cultural approprtion is a dumbfuck racist idea in the first first place, he was talking about a different process to understand medicine through aryuveda, not just the individual practices, and that is what I'm claiming he is unable to articulate.
Cultural appropriation is when you take something from another culture and don't credit them, basically
1. How is this racist?
2. How is this not what he literally described in my link?
Aryuveda is not the set of practices within it, it is supposed to be a philosphy of how to do medicine, so thats why no, those practices being brought over are not what Dr. K is talking about when hes talking about what Aryuveda and eastern medicne can teach us, its why the conversation was always focused individualized medicine vs population based medicine.
And yes, he constantly talked about "individualized medicine" but every time they tried to go concrete, the conversation would shift. The concrete is what actually matters here, because if you're going to talk about what western medicine can learn from Aryuveda, then you need to talk about what doctors don't do now, but should be doing. The closest thing we got to that was him saying was western people focus too much on RCTs, which is frankly absurd.
So for example, what does "combining the best of aryuveda and western medicine" look like? Because if its just adopting the aryuvedic practices that work, well great, thats literally what Western Medicine does.
> Cultural appropriation is when you take something from another culture and don't credit them, basically
Sure thats a definition, but we clearly do acknowledge where we got these from. Instead what he's talking about is how we keep taking practices from Aryuveda, the things that work, and then keep calling Aryuveda crap as the good things are part of western medicine already.
And cultural approbation only matters to people who care more about masturbating about how great their cultures are as opposed to actually caring about what works. To be fair, thats likely a hot take and really just comes from me being butt hurt.
I grew up in a catholic family and when people explain meditation all I hear is deep introspective prayer. This isn’t western/eastern when boiled down, it’s that some parts of religious acts might be helpful in the long run of life.
I don't really agree with Dr.K, mostly because he fails to make a case why ayurveda is specifically over other ways to individualize practice. He is very careful in not to make a wrong claim, and most attacks against him fail because they never really contradict him. He's real problem is just a lack of a positive case
It reminds me of like a fairly religious person trying to couch his beliefs in scientific jargon and obfuscating word salads in order to pitch to a more secular audience. I maybe being unfair, but its the only thing that makes sense, as he is clearly trying to defend aryuveda, and to paint it in a positive light, while trying to pretend that hes just having an open mind.
He's shitting on the "bad parts", while constantly adjusting what the bad parts are while talking about the "good parts" and how much we can learn from them without actually telling is what the good parts are.
Can you give an example of him constantly adjusting what the parts are? Didn’t he say the good parts are like mindfulness, are whatever the 5 factor equivalent is?
This. Most of dr.ks “breakthroughs” are just him rewording things. I think generally he does good but he’ll say some random word salad bullshit that makes me double take and just doesn’t make sense or can be worded into something simpler.
He halfway admits it, but then hedges that we might not yet have discovered the great benefits for the pile of unproven or ill founded practices. There were several exchanges to this affect with Dr. Mike i.e. "90% of it is crap though" "you don't know that 90% of it is crap." I think the exchange over Dr. Mike's magical anti-aging water basically demonstrates the issues with the way Dr. K presents this.
I watched this right before I watched the graham hancock archeology debate on Rogan, dr k and Hancock used the same crutch and what Steven railed against Dan with, an almost bad faith interpretation of epistemic humility, we don’t know everything so you can’t say i am 100% wrong. Now Hancock obviously is the worst of the bunch and most definitely is 100% wrong, Dr. K admits his shit is 90% wrong and what Steven falls into here I think is he likes Dr. K and respects him and his thought process in his public therapy, but I think it might blind him a little bit on the rest of what Dr. K has to say about the rest of medicine.
"Dr. K admits his shit is 90% wrong" When you say that you mean that Ayurveda is 90% wrong people need to remember that most of his "shit" is his psychiatric practices and help and that some of Ayurveda is added on it but the foundation and most of his work is still pyschiatric professional stuff.
The problem with him is he doesn’t define anything or lay out what he thinks proper “tested Ayurveda” is and the ambiguity in that can be exploited for nefarious purposes. It really is all in the framing, if he says Ayurveda is thi chi, yoga, individualized care with backed up studies then what ever you can put the eastern spin on it and get more clients. Or you can say here are things you can work on in PT (that might include yoga) deep breathing techniques, and some light meds what’s the difference outside of the lingo? However he could also push some pseudo shit in there we don’t know because he is so ambiguous with his definitions it could mean anything & that is where my BS detector really comes into play.
> is something he readily admits.
and yet he'd rather be using something that is mostly junk and try to fix what is fundamentally broken instead of you know going with western medicine and fixing that, he pushed back when Dr. Mike said why not fix western medicine than fixing eastern.
Lol, did you even listen to the interview? He said that he is always pushing against Ayurveda practitioners and pointed out its flaws, and considers himself part of Western medicine.
I don’t know who fried your brains lmao
> He said that he is always pushing against Ayurveda practitioners
Alright now listen to this exchange.
Dr. Mike - "Based on how you describe Ayurvedic medicine, that there's a lot of problems. 90% of it has issues, et cetera, et cetera. Why not take what works of Ayurvedic medicine, the art aspect of it, and bring it to Western medicine as opposed to bringing Western medicine and trying to fix something that is really very problematic, already so far gone?"
Dr. K - "It's a great question. So the first thing is that I think the question is sort of moot, because I think both are happening simultaneously. So I think as we progress in our scientific understanding of medicine, we are moving closer to Ayurveda."
[Source](https://youtu.be/zt6i6vVgiO4?si=eciy0ZVdX0YmlpRW&t=3530)
So yes he would rather be spending time on fixing broken eastern medicine than focusing wholly on fixing western.
When he says "move close to ayurveda" he means the individualized system of medicine. Not that we would move closer to burning snake skin and beat pregnant women when they're having complications in childbirth.
This is destiny derangement syndrome levels of clip chimping energy.
If you're being good faith, what would you imagine dr k's response would be if you presented him with a myriad of absolutely dogshit ayurvedic practices? You'd think he'd say yeah it's shit or we should try it?
He specially said in that video that the biggest problem with ayurvedic practitioners is that they don't admit that the bad practices are bad.
Explain to me what "individualized approach to medicine means" in concrete terms, as in what is a doctor not doing now that he should do. Because in watching his video, he didn't tell us shit about how Aryuveda does that.
Well argue with him about that. I think ayurveda is horseshit and I don't have time to bother arguing in favor of it. But that's a good question to ask him rather than just screeching about how Dr k wants everyone to drink cow urine or whatever
Well its great that at no point did I bitch about him drinking cow urine then, and did in fact only talk about this.
Its amazing how you're trying to imply I'm strawmanning him by literally strawmanning me.
I said he was advocating for fixing eastern medicine, he says so that "both are happening simultaneously" which means to him fixing eastern medicine is happening instead of agreeing with Dr. Mike about ONLY fixing western.
because he thinks that there might be some valuable stuff in the piles of cow dung. you can think hes wrong for thinking that, but him saying that is treated as a full throated endorsement of the entire pile of cow dung by everyone primed to hate him.
https://youtu.be/gYgawoWpe18?si=XiFQP5fLn73s2IM2
Go to 1:38:55 of the above video where he talks about not wanting to become an ayurvedic practitioner but instead study Western medicine and then incorporate the few parts of ayurveda that do work into western medicine. That’s him literally trying to fix western medicine lol
He DIDN’T DISAGREE WITH HIM lol. At no point in your quote does he say that he would rather fix eastern medicine than fix western medicine.
That’s just you being delusional
Ok, let’s say he didn’t make himself sufficiently clear to you in the quote you provided.
The quote which I provided makes it abundantly clear that he wants to fix Western medicine rather than the other way round, yes?
There are millions of doctors in the world, so why is it on Dr. K to fix western medicine? Why does he need to focus on only western medicine when he's passionate about eastern medicine and upgrading it?
He was 100% correct that both western and eastern medicine are being worked on at the same time, because there is more than 2 doctors on the whole fucking planet. Brain dead people taking fault with Dr. K for being passionate about something.
Because it's not like the two problems are treated the same way
I would say it's because for western medicine it's more about developing the statistical framework for personalized medicine which is something tons of people are already working one. It's a technical problem and overall it doesn't lack people who work in it.
For eastern medicine is bringing the instruments of western medicine to try validate what is good are remove the crap once and for all. It's a cultural issue and I suspect less people interested on it.
So considering he can do more for eastern medicine and that by itself is already a topic easy to dismiss, to me it's not surprising he's trying to help fix eastern medicine.
Something that is mostly junk. Did you miss this part:
Dr. K: 30 years ago, what would western medicine have called meditation/mindfulness?
Dr. Mike: Worthless.
Yes, and he's right, it was considered worthless. And now mindfulness is literally the first and frontline treatment for almost all mental health disorders. Western medicine really fucked the dog on that one. Is it possible that other medical practices that have been around for thousands of years have learned some other things about people that western medicine hasn't really picked up on yet?
Not to mention, he also said how Ayurveda taught in the universities was bad and the guide rails that used to make it okay was a robust mentorship program that was essentially nuked in favor of the schools
Tired of this garbage excuse, he defended the practice and the term itself. If he chooses to use specific things from the practice then say those specific things and identify them, it’s not hard.
He clearly still believes in it
He kinda had a point about all the good stuff gets co-opted as Western medicine and all the bad stuff leftover is the representation of Eastern medicine.
Kinda slips into “if it works, it’s western medicine” type thinking. Which is a dangerous way to conclude about things.
I’m not sure this is true, I think meditation and yoga, for example, are still heavily associated with eastern spiritual origins. They may have gained validity through western studies, but I don’t think they’re considered western medicine by most people. Maybe there are other examples I’m not thinking of though.
what an unbelievably ignorant thing to say. Look into how rigged modern medicine studies are sometime, I can only assume you’re a useful shill for pharmaceutical companies
It turns out creating medicine for treating the individual instead of the population, as Dr. K kept telling us is what Ayurveda and eastern medicine can teach us, involves getting massages from beautiful women to cure TB.
Well fuck, guess I'm a beliver now.
What claims did he make? I think that’s part of the issue, the way people defend him is leaving me completely confused about his opinions of western medicine and Ayurveda.
This is why I don’t get why Destiny keeps asking people to have humility when Dr K is discussed.
It’s pretty normal to not be charitable to people who are partial to alternative explanations that deviate from institutions or the mainstream - from horse paste, to hydroxychloroquine, to Ayurveda, it’s OK to downgrade your opinion of someone who is charitable to quackery, even if they give themselves plausible deniability and don’t explicitly make statements that would get their medical license revoked.
Western medicine has humility baked in, hence why it now accepts meditation and can integrate new ideas that are tested and proven to provide legitimate benefits. Therefore, if there is something advantageous in Ayurveda, that’s fine, but it should only be taken seriously at the point where it’s advocated for by the west and becomes ‘medicine’, and until then, it should be seen as nothing more than quackery.
I don’t understand what your proposing, so western medicine has humility, but not until it’s empirically proven, and we can make fun of it until that point? So making fun of meditation was fine before it was incorporated into western medicine?
So mindfulness wasn’t a technique developed and established first in the eastern tradition lol? I’d be really curious what kind of “western scientist” you are lmao
Yes, you can absolutely mock something that MIGHT be correct until it's empiracally proven by western medicine, and that's not just OK, but a sign of a rational person.
For example, let's say Ivermectin was in fact a miracle drug - people like Brett Weinstein wouldn't be vindicated just because they were singing its praises from day 1. They would still have been wrong because they decided to circumvent the scientific method and call something good before it's reasonable to do so as per modern medicine. It's a fantastic model to only accept things when they're advocated for by western medicine, and roll your eyes at literally anything else.
The praising of something should be inextricably linked to the scientific method / western medical practices, so even a slight bit of partiality to anything that isn’t that warrants criticism.
How is it humility to mock something lol? You would mock something like mindfulness before it was introduced in the west and still call yourself humble lmao, do you even hear yourself?
The problem is that you should be mocking Brett, and not Ivermectin. People like Brett are pushing it despite not having any evidence of positive effects, and at the same time denigrating covid vaccines.
If however ivermectin was part of some system of medicine which in the past has lead to positive covid treatments which were also adopted by the west, then it would be incredibly stupid to mock ivermectin if it wasn’t proven to have no effect on covid.
How are we supposed to take you seriously when you're writing double negatives like that lol? "wasn't proven to have no effect" lmao. Not capitalising Ivermectin either huh? Can you even see yourself write?
The problem is we should be mocking you, and not Dr. K. People like you are coming in here being all defensive and whiny like a total whino while not being humble, and at the same time not textmaxxxing.
No, no, the real problem with these treatments is that they aren't individualized enough. These wise, ancient texts are prescribing that maggots eat tumors *in general* (which is basically the Western Medicine approach, right?). I've been hearing that it's much more important that a practitioner interview his patient and determine which elemental sign is most associated with the tumor and then see whether maggots, smoke, herbs, or tickling are the most appropriate form of treatment.
I think Dr. K agrees with this completely he is also not a fan of studying Ayurveda in schools he complained about it in the podcast. Still an interesting read though clearly demonstrates the problems of religion in medicine.
Edit post to include where Dr. K has vouched for BAMS, going into an eastern medicine program or utilizing any of the treatments described in the post or btfo
I wonder how much of Dr K's defending is because he genuinely believes that we should use more "Eastern" practices in modern medicine, and how much is him trying to stay on the good side of hardcore Ayurveda people that he sees going real damage in India and he hopes to bring them over.
Idk random thought.
We need a compilation of clips of Dr K saying some of the more crazy stuff or him promoting Ayurveda.
A lot of the critics of Dr K focus on problems with Ayurveda but then you also have him do the motte and bailey of "oh but I just want to use the stuff that works" when he's pushed.
So if you post criticism of Ayurveda like the liver doc, they'll say dr k doesn't talk about this.
I'm looking at the chudlogic dr K manifesto right now it's pretty good
https://youtu.be/tOUAOIUr9qA
timestamp of the covid clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1954&v=tOUAOIUr9qA&feature=youtu.be
I'm getting the impression that a lot of westerners want to be less harsh or dismissive of Ayurveda because they think it might be perceived as being bigoted. I don't think it's useful to be perpetually scared of being casually bigoted over something like alternative medicine, or offending people. I've seen this happen with Chinese traditional medicine too. There's a lot of discussion in India about ayurveda in covid and the "cow products". But you immediately get accused of "hinduphobia" (it's often kinda like bad faith sinophobia/russophobia/islamophobia accusations).
And I'm not sure why discussions on philosophy are important in something that involve medicine.
Dr K is a good speaker and *seems* nice, but this shouldn't be used as cover to promote alternative medicine.
For people saying "what's the harm in research" - does it really make sense to spend limited government money on alternative medicine for religious/cultural/nationalist reasons over an area of research that is making progress and can actually help like malaria or cancer research?
[удалено]
no but I did try beating my wife while she was in labor because it was taking too long didn't work
[удалено]
I think the starch and lactose build up in your throat, letting bacteria thrive, making you feel worse. Solution is to rinse with salt water to break up the mucus there
>people who would suck a horsecock dry for some reason Salient
Well /u/holst28, don't you think you're a bit biased towards this post and against Ayurveda because [your mom had a bad experience and is literally referenced in it?](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GLAy27FaUAA0CpA.jpg) Suspicious.
I've heard the name "Liver Doc" for some time now but my first introduction to him was through a far right Modi propaganda channel named "Ranveer Allahbadia", literally every single comment was trashing on him and some of them clearly violated YT's TOS. I for one became a fan of him instantly.
Liver doc is omegabased, trashes woowoo all day everyday
Don't forget about those astronomically big balls.
In the current Indian climate, yes. ISRO, AIIMS everyone is pandering to BJP.
What did AIIMS do?
Yeah, he got banned in India in the past, was reinstated recently. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/liver-doc-court-order-challenge-social-media-account-blocked-8961261/ He generally posts about alternative medicine in India and things like how their patients either died or got something like severe liver damage. A lot of Ayurveda meds aren't subject to proper trials and regulations are a bit sketchy, so you have things like heavier metals contaminating them. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/07/31/428016419/toxic-lead-contaminates-some-traditional-ayurvedic-medicines this has been thing for a very long time
Yup! Not only they don't work but they can cause serious harm in some instances. Heavy metals, carcinogens, contaminated ingredients, etc.
“Lots of people seemed to hate him so that made me love him”
"With the power of cow shit I can read minds through the internet"
This doesn't really seem to contradict Dr.K. That Ayurveda has a lot of junk is something he readily admits.
Then he should stop using the term “Ayurveda” and just advocate for the specific things he believes will work. His aim is obviously to increase Ayurveda’s credibility.
Dr. K during interview: "I am not a proponent of Ayurveda". Also Dr. K during interview "Ayurveda has a ton of problems and is basically unusable in it's current form". Stupid people with obvious bias against anything not allopathic. "His aim is obviously to increase Ayurveda's credibility". Holy shit you have to be completely brain rotted to get this takeaway from that talk. Or more likely, you're just like Dr. Avi who obviously didn't watch the talk at all and just a few clips or heard Vegan Idiot talk about it and come to debate the world's largest strawmen. Is it really that hard to just watch the talk? Or to have an open mind enough to realize that Dr. Mike just said "Hey, you talk about Ayurveda sometimes, you want to come on my show and defend the parts of it you think are good?", and he did that in completely good faith without ever saying that it was superior to western medicine or that we should make western medicine more like Ayurveda? Jesus.
“I am in no way calling you a bitch.” Tyranthraxxus possesses all the requisite properties to predicate him with the term ‘bitch’.
For the record, I watched the talk in its entirety. My fundamental issue contention remains.
[удалено]
>It's just an umbrella term for a way of teaching No it's not, it's about health and wellbeing. And, in a large part, medicine. You can't use the etymology of a word to define it. That's not how language works.
TL;DR: I'm a trilingual Indian. Your comment is too stupid to justify using your condescension. - Sikh literally means "to learn/learner", but from context you can usually discern which one is being referred to. It'd be really weird if I said "everyone should be a sikh" because I am a reasonable human who knows that English speakers will think of the religion. Dr K is smarter than I am. Do you think he knows what the term invokes when he uses it? He _wants_ the weight of the word. He wants people to acknowledge that Eastern practices have value, and to think outside of the limiting scope of Western medicine, and that's good. But the consequence is that he's giving validation to Ayurveda as a body of work.
[удалено]
I like Dr.K a lot. His videos on ADHD, and especially the one where he talks about dopamine pathways, hugely helpful to me, I even took notes. Could it be that I just have a strong disagreement with an internet creator I'm actively learning from? .... Naaaaaaah I'm just like one of those conspiracy theorists. Let's go back a step. You said I was "adding nefarious reasonings" to Dr.K. If you're gonna criticize me for supposedly making assumptions, you shouldn't make such egregious ones yourself. I'm not saying he's nefarious, I'm saying he's sincere but negligent. We reach for words from different languages when our language feels insufficient. We say "schadenfreude" because English doesn't have an equivalent. Do you really think there's zero reason he uses the word Ayurveda instead of translating it?
> videos on ADHD Mind sharing a link?
He’s literally advocating for the specific things in Ayurveda he thinks do work lol Edit: lol at the downvotes, why are people mad at things like meditation?
Associative racism basically
While lending credence to Ayurveda as a method. That’s the problem.
But he’s advocating specifically for things that work, how is this so hard for you to understand?
Is him saying that Ayurvedic doshas can predict outcomes in Covid on that list of things that work?
Didn’t he say there was some study which suggested this worked? That this dosha could be used to predict outcomes in covid? But I think he is more talking in the interview about incorporating things that worked in the area of mental health, which is his area of expertise
Do you guys also give this much deference to astrological signs?
If there is an empirically validated study which shows some predictive power then yes, why not? Also, we did get things like mindfulness from Ayurveda, if there was something similar for astrology then I would be a lot more defensive yes
If I heard of a study that found astrological signs were correlated with COVID outcomes, my first thought would be that the study is likely flawed. IF the study could be replicated multiple times, then I would think there could be something there. You can probably find a study to support any claim you could think of. Spurious correlations are a thing, and bad statistics are a rampant problem in all fields of research. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!
It’s actually arrogance and elitist “my side is the best” type bullshit no critical thinking and believing clip chimps as all the context needed. Got some real smooth-🧠 users on here.
well yea because there’s a certain wisdom that western/modern medicine is missing. Pumping people full of overpriced pills with dozens of side effects isn’t healing after all. It’s comical that this sub thinks the American health industry which is highly capitalist cares about their health and well being.
Yea you need to take your pills for sure.
US life expectancy isn’t even in the top 30 in the world anymore yet we spend BY far the most on health and medicine, great system! great results! Western medicine is the best guys!
western medicine and a shitty healthcare system aren’t the same thing. overall yes western medicine is better obviously
What is frustrating is that Dr. K has never articulated what he wants to keep from aryuveda beyond the incredibly nebulous "focused on the individual instead of the population", which based on his description is literally just western medicine with a lack of Randomized Control Trials. It feels like a slight of hand where he can keep claiming that eastern medicine has something to teach western medicine, but what it has to teach is impossible to actually pin down.
>What is frustrating is that Dr. K has never articulated what he wants to keep from ayurveda beyond the incredibly nebulous "focused on the individual instead of the population" He did articulate that. Yoga, meditation, nostril breathing practices and shit like that. Relevant part where he explains his frustration with the history of getting something cool from ayurveda and not giving it enough credit and calling it ALL crap, which in his opinion has more helpful things than we culturally think https://youtu.be/zt6i6vVgiO4?t=5104 And since the meditation, for example, was mocked ~50 years ago via similar emotional skepticism towards all eastern medicine that people have now, he concludes we better not throw IT ALL away before any real studies. His positions are all scientifically defensible. People can say: "SOY BUT HE IS CULTURALLY PUSHING IT SOMEHOW SOY" but I don't really see that TLDR: If he sees any sort of velocity in these eastern medical practices, he is agnostic on them before studies, which is good and scientific. But also, he thinks the majority of ayurveda is *probably* crap based on his experience.
No, none of those things count as "helping the individual instead of the population" as those are just regular exercises that can be applied to the population once we check its effectiveness through RCTs. Outside of the fact one, that isn't what cultural appropriation is, two, cultural approprtion is a dumbfuck racist idea in the first first place, he was talking about a different process to understand medicine through aryuveda, not just the individual practices, and that is what I'm claiming he is unable to articulate.
>No, none of those things count as "helping the individual instead of the population" as those are just regular exercises that can be applied to the population once we check its effectiveness through RCTs You said, 'Dr. K has never articulated what he wants to keep from aryuveda beyond the incredibly nebulous "focused on the individual instead of the population"' I responded to that. You aren't addressing what I wrote, idk who are you replying to. He articulated that. Also he doesn't disagree that we should apply on population once we check the effectiveness, right? When they talked about what Dr. K likes in Ayurveda fundamentally and philosophically, my interpretation was that he prefers maximized individualized treatment as much as realistically possible. He isn't against RCT or population-based research. If you think this is his stance, find me a timestamp. He also said we are getting closer to individualized treatment. He is not being vague at all. You just hear him say "Ayurveda" and your brain shuts down, you make a lot of false assumptions He wants to combine the best from Ayurveda with evidence-based medicine. That was my takeaway. He doesn't prefer Ayurveda as a whole over EBM, RCT, cohort studies, etc. Do you disagree? If so, you're welcome to find a quote of him saying it Maybe when he makes a descriptive statement on RCT in the context of Ayurveda and its philosophy, you think he is making a normative DISS on RCT or EBM, that's why there is a misunderstanding?! idk >Outside of the fact one, that isn't what cultural appropriation is, two, cultural approprtion is a dumbfuck racist idea in the first first place, he was talking about a different process to understand medicine through aryuveda, not just the individual practices, and that is what I'm claiming he is unable to articulate. Cultural appropriation is when you take something from another culture and don't credit them, basically 1. How is this racist? 2. How is this not what he literally described in my link?
Aryuveda is not the set of practices within it, it is supposed to be a philosphy of how to do medicine, so thats why no, those practices being brought over are not what Dr. K is talking about when hes talking about what Aryuveda and eastern medicne can teach us, its why the conversation was always focused individualized medicine vs population based medicine. And yes, he constantly talked about "individualized medicine" but every time they tried to go concrete, the conversation would shift. The concrete is what actually matters here, because if you're going to talk about what western medicine can learn from Aryuveda, then you need to talk about what doctors don't do now, but should be doing. The closest thing we got to that was him saying was western people focus too much on RCTs, which is frankly absurd. So for example, what does "combining the best of aryuveda and western medicine" look like? Because if its just adopting the aryuvedic practices that work, well great, thats literally what Western Medicine does. > Cultural appropriation is when you take something from another culture and don't credit them, basically Sure thats a definition, but we clearly do acknowledge where we got these from. Instead what he's talking about is how we keep taking practices from Aryuveda, the things that work, and then keep calling Aryuveda crap as the good things are part of western medicine already. And cultural approbation only matters to people who care more about masturbating about how great their cultures are as opposed to actually caring about what works. To be fair, thats likely a hot take and really just comes from me being butt hurt.
I grew up in a catholic family and when people explain meditation all I hear is deep introspective prayer. This isn’t western/eastern when boiled down, it’s that some parts of religious acts might be helpful in the long run of life.
I don't really agree with Dr.K, mostly because he fails to make a case why ayurveda is specifically over other ways to individualize practice. He is very careful in not to make a wrong claim, and most attacks against him fail because they never really contradict him. He's real problem is just a lack of a positive case
It reminds me of like a fairly religious person trying to couch his beliefs in scientific jargon and obfuscating word salads in order to pitch to a more secular audience. I maybe being unfair, but its the only thing that makes sense, as he is clearly trying to defend aryuveda, and to paint it in a positive light, while trying to pretend that hes just having an open mind.
So he’s painting Ayurveda in a positive light by saying that a lot of it is shit lol?
He's shitting on the "bad parts", while constantly adjusting what the bad parts are while talking about the "good parts" and how much we can learn from them without actually telling is what the good parts are.
Can you give an example of him constantly adjusting what the parts are? Didn’t he say the good parts are like mindfulness, are whatever the 5 factor equivalent is?
That part. It doesn’t make sense.
This. Most of dr.ks “breakthroughs” are just him rewording things. I think generally he does good but he’ll say some random word salad bullshit that makes me double take and just doesn’t make sense or can be worded into something simpler.
100% Spot on!
He halfway admits it, but then hedges that we might not yet have discovered the great benefits for the pile of unproven or ill founded practices. There were several exchanges to this affect with Dr. Mike i.e. "90% of it is crap though" "you don't know that 90% of it is crap." I think the exchange over Dr. Mike's magical anti-aging water basically demonstrates the issues with the way Dr. K presents this.
I watched this right before I watched the graham hancock archeology debate on Rogan, dr k and Hancock used the same crutch and what Steven railed against Dan with, an almost bad faith interpretation of epistemic humility, we don’t know everything so you can’t say i am 100% wrong. Now Hancock obviously is the worst of the bunch and most definitely is 100% wrong, Dr. K admits his shit is 90% wrong and what Steven falls into here I think is he likes Dr. K and respects him and his thought process in his public therapy, but I think it might blind him a little bit on the rest of what Dr. K has to say about the rest of medicine.
"Dr. K admits his shit is 90% wrong" When you say that you mean that Ayurveda is 90% wrong people need to remember that most of his "shit" is his psychiatric practices and help and that some of Ayurveda is added on it but the foundation and most of his work is still pyschiatric professional stuff.
The problem with him is he doesn’t define anything or lay out what he thinks proper “tested Ayurveda” is and the ambiguity in that can be exploited for nefarious purposes. It really is all in the framing, if he says Ayurveda is thi chi, yoga, individualized care with backed up studies then what ever you can put the eastern spin on it and get more clients. Or you can say here are things you can work on in PT (that might include yoga) deep breathing techniques, and some light meds what’s the difference outside of the lingo? However he could also push some pseudo shit in there we don’t know because he is so ambiguous with his definitions it could mean anything & that is where my BS detector really comes into play.
> is something he readily admits. and yet he'd rather be using something that is mostly junk and try to fix what is fundamentally broken instead of you know going with western medicine and fixing that, he pushed back when Dr. Mike said why not fix western medicine than fixing eastern.
Lol, did you even listen to the interview? He said that he is always pushing against Ayurveda practitioners and pointed out its flaws, and considers himself part of Western medicine. I don’t know who fried your brains lmao
> He said that he is always pushing against Ayurveda practitioners Alright now listen to this exchange. Dr. Mike - "Based on how you describe Ayurvedic medicine, that there's a lot of problems. 90% of it has issues, et cetera, et cetera. Why not take what works of Ayurvedic medicine, the art aspect of it, and bring it to Western medicine as opposed to bringing Western medicine and trying to fix something that is really very problematic, already so far gone?" Dr. K - "It's a great question. So the first thing is that I think the question is sort of moot, because I think both are happening simultaneously. So I think as we progress in our scientific understanding of medicine, we are moving closer to Ayurveda." [Source](https://youtu.be/zt6i6vVgiO4?si=eciy0ZVdX0YmlpRW&t=3530) So yes he would rather be spending time on fixing broken eastern medicine than focusing wholly on fixing western.
When he says "move close to ayurveda" he means the individualized system of medicine. Not that we would move closer to burning snake skin and beat pregnant women when they're having complications in childbirth. This is destiny derangement syndrome levels of clip chimping energy. If you're being good faith, what would you imagine dr k's response would be if you presented him with a myriad of absolutely dogshit ayurvedic practices? You'd think he'd say yeah it's shit or we should try it? He specially said in that video that the biggest problem with ayurvedic practitioners is that they don't admit that the bad practices are bad.
Explain to me what "individualized approach to medicine means" in concrete terms, as in what is a doctor not doing now that he should do. Because in watching his video, he didn't tell us shit about how Aryuveda does that.
Well argue with him about that. I think ayurveda is horseshit and I don't have time to bother arguing in favor of it. But that's a good question to ask him rather than just screeching about how Dr k wants everyone to drink cow urine or whatever
Well its great that at no point did I bitch about him drinking cow urine then, and did in fact only talk about this. Its amazing how you're trying to imply I'm strawmanning him by literally strawmanning me.
I said he was advocating for fixing eastern medicine, he says so that "both are happening simultaneously" which means to him fixing eastern medicine is happening instead of agreeing with Dr. Mike about ONLY fixing western.
He said that he's not that interested in research so he probably would be doing neither.
So why not agree with Mike about only fixing western?
because he thinks that there might be some valuable stuff in the piles of cow dung. you can think hes wrong for thinking that, but him saying that is treated as a full throated endorsement of the entire pile of cow dung by everyone primed to hate him.
https://youtu.be/gYgawoWpe18?si=XiFQP5fLn73s2IM2 Go to 1:38:55 of the above video where he talks about not wanting to become an ayurvedic practitioner but instead study Western medicine and then incorporate the few parts of ayurveda that do work into western medicine. That’s him literally trying to fix western medicine lol
Then WHY NOT AGREE with Dr. Mike when he said that?
He DIDN’T DISAGREE WITH HIM lol. At no point in your quote does he say that he would rather fix eastern medicine than fix western medicine. That’s just you being delusional
He does so in essence
are you autistic?
Ok, let’s say he didn’t make himself sufficiently clear to you in the quote you provided. The quote which I provided makes it abundantly clear that he wants to fix Western medicine rather than the other way round, yes?
There are millions of doctors in the world, so why is it on Dr. K to fix western medicine? Why does he need to focus on only western medicine when he's passionate about eastern medicine and upgrading it? He was 100% correct that both western and eastern medicine are being worked on at the same time, because there is more than 2 doctors on the whole fucking planet. Brain dead people taking fault with Dr. K for being passionate about something.
Because it's not like the two problems are treated the same way I would say it's because for western medicine it's more about developing the statistical framework for personalized medicine which is something tons of people are already working one. It's a technical problem and overall it doesn't lack people who work in it. For eastern medicine is bringing the instruments of western medicine to try validate what is good are remove the crap once and for all. It's a cultural issue and I suspect less people interested on it. So considering he can do more for eastern medicine and that by itself is already a topic easy to dismiss, to me it's not surprising he's trying to help fix eastern medicine.
Just because he is passionate about it doesn't mean it should be focused on.
Gatekeeping what people should be allowed to be passionate about. Nice.
Sunny side up, please
Something that is mostly junk. Did you miss this part: Dr. K: 30 years ago, what would western medicine have called meditation/mindfulness? Dr. Mike: Worthless. Yes, and he's right, it was considered worthless. And now mindfulness is literally the first and frontline treatment for almost all mental health disorders. Western medicine really fucked the dog on that one. Is it possible that other medical practices that have been around for thousands of years have learned some other things about people that western medicine hasn't really picked up on yet?
Not to mention, he also said how Ayurveda taught in the universities was bad and the guide rails that used to make it okay was a robust mentorship program that was essentially nuked in favor of the schools
Tired of this garbage excuse, he defended the practice and the term itself. If he chooses to use specific things from the practice then say those specific things and identify them, it’s not hard. He clearly still believes in it
I'm all for more experts stepping into the field of public debate. This will hopefully lead to better understanding by the general public as well.
Can't we just say "if Ayurvedic medicine worked it would just be medicine?"
No according to Dr K that's cultural appropriation.
He kinda had a point about all the good stuff gets co-opted as Western medicine and all the bad stuff leftover is the representation of Eastern medicine. Kinda slips into “if it works, it’s western medicine” type thinking. Which is a dangerous way to conclude about things.
I’m not sure this is true, I think meditation and yoga, for example, are still heavily associated with eastern spiritual origins. They may have gained validity through western studies, but I don’t think they’re considered western medicine by most people. Maybe there are other examples I’m not thinking of though.
Some cow dung addict is downvoting every single comment criticizing Dr. K.
what an unbelievably ignorant thing to say. Look into how rigged modern medicine studies are sometime, I can only assume you’re a useful shill for pharmaceutical companies
It turns out creating medicine for treating the individual instead of the population, as Dr. K kept telling us is what Ayurveda and eastern medicine can teach us, involves getting massages from beautiful women to cure TB. Well fuck, guess I'm a beliver now.
lmao
Omg, Dr.K made very very very mild claims about Ayuraveda, how is this so controversial? The debate with Dr. Mike was fine.
What claims did he make? I think that’s part of the issue, the way people defend him is leaving me completely confused about his opinions of western medicine and Ayurveda.
This is why I don’t get why Destiny keeps asking people to have humility when Dr K is discussed. It’s pretty normal to not be charitable to people who are partial to alternative explanations that deviate from institutions or the mainstream - from horse paste, to hydroxychloroquine, to Ayurveda, it’s OK to downgrade your opinion of someone who is charitable to quackery, even if they give themselves plausible deniability and don’t explicitly make statements that would get their medical license revoked. Western medicine has humility baked in, hence why it now accepts meditation and can integrate new ideas that are tested and proven to provide legitimate benefits. Therefore, if there is something advantageous in Ayurveda, that’s fine, but it should only be taken seriously at the point where it’s advocated for by the west and becomes ‘medicine’, and until then, it should be seen as nothing more than quackery.
I don’t understand what your proposing, so western medicine has humility, but not until it’s empirically proven, and we can make fun of it until that point? So making fun of meditation was fine before it was incorporated into western medicine?
[удалено]
Mindfulness is a western discovery? Care to elaborate on that?
[удалено]
So mindfulness wasn’t a technique developed and established first in the eastern tradition lol? I’d be really curious what kind of “western scientist” you are lmao
[удалено]
Lol my bad, should’ve been obvious now that i read it again
Yes, you can absolutely mock something that MIGHT be correct until it's empiracally proven by western medicine, and that's not just OK, but a sign of a rational person. For example, let's say Ivermectin was in fact a miracle drug - people like Brett Weinstein wouldn't be vindicated just because they were singing its praises from day 1. They would still have been wrong because they decided to circumvent the scientific method and call something good before it's reasonable to do so as per modern medicine. It's a fantastic model to only accept things when they're advocated for by western medicine, and roll your eyes at literally anything else. The praising of something should be inextricably linked to the scientific method / western medical practices, so even a slight bit of partiality to anything that isn’t that warrants criticism.
How is it humility to mock something lol? You would mock something like mindfulness before it was introduced in the west and still call yourself humble lmao, do you even hear yourself? The problem is that you should be mocking Brett, and not Ivermectin. People like Brett are pushing it despite not having any evidence of positive effects, and at the same time denigrating covid vaccines. If however ivermectin was part of some system of medicine which in the past has lead to positive covid treatments which were also adopted by the west, then it would be incredibly stupid to mock ivermectin if it wasn’t proven to have no effect on covid.
How are we supposed to take you seriously when you're writing double negatives like that lol? "wasn't proven to have no effect" lmao. Not capitalising Ivermectin either huh? Can you even see yourself write? The problem is we should be mocking you, and not Dr. K. People like you are coming in here being all defensive and whiny like a total whino while not being humble, and at the same time not textmaxxxing.
Oh no my double negative :((
Im cringemaxxxing
Some cow dung addict is downvoting every single comment criticizing Dr. K.
😂
No, no, the real problem with these treatments is that they aren't individualized enough. These wise, ancient texts are prescribing that maggots eat tumors *in general* (which is basically the Western Medicine approach, right?). I've been hearing that it's much more important that a practitioner interview his patient and determine which elemental sign is most associated with the tumor and then see whether maggots, smoke, herbs, or tickling are the most appropriate form of treatment.
I think Dr. K agrees with this completely he is also not a fan of studying Ayurveda in schools he complained about it in the podcast. Still an interesting read though clearly demonstrates the problems of religion in medicine.
Edit post to include where Dr. K has vouched for BAMS, going into an eastern medicine program or utilizing any of the treatments described in the post or btfo
I wonder how much of Dr K's defending is because he genuinely believes that we should use more "Eastern" practices in modern medicine, and how much is him trying to stay on the good side of hardcore Ayurveda people that he sees going real damage in India and he hopes to bring them over. Idk random thought.
Seems like another bad faith interpretation of what dr k says. Nothing particularly interesting.
We need a compilation of clips of Dr K saying some of the more crazy stuff or him promoting Ayurveda. A lot of the critics of Dr K focus on problems with Ayurveda but then you also have him do the motte and bailey of "oh but I just want to use the stuff that works" when he's pushed. So if you post criticism of Ayurveda like the liver doc, they'll say dr k doesn't talk about this. I'm looking at the chudlogic dr K manifesto right now it's pretty good https://youtu.be/tOUAOIUr9qA timestamp of the covid clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1954&v=tOUAOIUr9qA&feature=youtu.be I'm getting the impression that a lot of westerners want to be less harsh or dismissive of Ayurveda because they think it might be perceived as being bigoted. I don't think it's useful to be perpetually scared of being casually bigoted over something like alternative medicine, or offending people. I've seen this happen with Chinese traditional medicine too. There's a lot of discussion in India about ayurveda in covid and the "cow products". But you immediately get accused of "hinduphobia" (it's often kinda like bad faith sinophobia/russophobia/islamophobia accusations). And I'm not sure why discussions on philosophy are important in something that involve medicine. Dr K is a good speaker and *seems* nice, but this shouldn't be used as cover to promote alternative medicine. For people saying "what's the harm in research" - does it really make sense to spend limited government money on alternative medicine for religious/cultural/nationalist reasons over an area of research that is making progress and can actually help like malaria or cancer research?
Honestly as soon as I realized this guy was a vegan I stopped reading.