Anti-Ayurveda bias

From Dharmapedia Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Anti-Ayurveda bias is most often motivated by Anti-Indian and anti-Hindu bias.

However, Anti-Ayurveda bias is also done by Big Pharma $hills who are hostile to all alternative medical theraphies (but even then, they often select Ayurveda for special hatred).[1]

In the British Raj, under governor-general William Bentinck, all support of the Indian medical systems (including Ayurveda) was stopped, the Native Medical Institution was abolished in 1835 and the Calcutta Medical College was established to impart western medicine in English.[2]

Powerful and hostile interests that surround the WHO and other organisations are against indigenous, traditional and natural-based medicine, and in favour of Big Pharma.[3]

In India, there have been violent attacks on Ayurveda businesses.[4] In Kashmir, terrorists have called a doctor, feigning a sickness, and then killed the doctor.

Bias on wikipedia[edit]

See also QuackGuru

The wikipedia page on Ayurveda is biased (big surprise). The article history shows massive pov pushing by users like QuackGuru, Alexbrn... [6]

The talkpages confirm the bias. Even talkpage comments by users worrying about the extreme bias are reverted and removed without discussion [7].

Wikipedia founder Larry Sanger writes:

Compare how Britannica and Wikipedia introduce the traditional system of Indian medicine called Ayurveda.
Britannica is respectful.
Wikipedia has no fewer than four dismissive epithets in the first paragraph: "quackery," "pseudoscientific," "protoscience," and "unscientific."..
Not long ago, this article would have been regarded as a deep offense against multiculturalism. ... It is not the role of an encyclopedia to tell people what to think or to cast aspersions on entire cultures. ... Wikipedia should make *no* claims on its own behalf about what is (effective) medicine; that is not the role of an encyclopedia. It can repeat research on that though. ... You assume that you can detect what "modern medicine," or other scientific or scholarly work, really is, i.e., whether it actually passes muster of the scientific method. ... If the systems of peer review is screwed up, you can't. Nor if medical research is tainted by filthy lucre from Big Pharma. The world is considerably more complicated than the silly children at Wikipedia think it is. Britannica at least understands that much...[5]

It has been commented about the bias on wikipedia with some polemics: "For @Wikipedia , Ayurveda is quackery, fake. U can't even edit the page because they have locked it to protect it from Vandalism. But for #Wikipedia , Unani medicine which stole its knowledge from Ayurveda, is scientific Wikipedia is Marxist-Mullah-Missionary propaganda machine. [6]

Wikipedia pov pushers characterize Ayurveda as pseudo science, while wikipedia mandates that actual pseudo science like Psychoanalysis should not be characterized as pseudo science.

Notes[edit]

<templatestyles src="Reflist/styles.css" />

References[edit]

<templatestyles src="Reflist/styles.css" />

See also[edit]

External links[edit]