Here is my evidence: 

1. Herb-Induced Liver Injury in the Berlin Case-Control Surveillance Study

2. A rare case of acute hepatitis induced by use of Babchi seeds as an Ayurvedic remedy for vitiligo

3. Luffa echinata: healer plant or potential killer

4. Review article: herbal and dietary supplement hepatotoxicity

5. Acute renal failure secondary to ingestion of alternative medication in a patient with breast cancer

6. Herbal hepatotoxicity: a tabular compilation of reported cases

7. Acute renal failure secondary to ingestion of ayurvedic medicine containing mercury

8. This is what a liver transplant surgeon told me recently

1. Homeopathy ineffective, study confirms

2. 1,800 Studies Later, Scientists Conclude Homeopathy Doesn’t Work

3. Another Review Finds Homeopathy Worthless

4. Russian Academy of Sciences says homeopathy is dangerous 'pseudoscience' that does not work

5. This is what a liver transplant surgeon told me recently*

You can't say for example, “This seems to work so there must be some science to it” and create a weird theory to fit in the conflicting data. One usually needs the hypothesis first and then your experiments need to confirm the hypothesis. After one proves the hypothesis do scientists apply the hypothesis in the real world. This is how real science works.

The modern drugs go through 4 phases of Clinical Trials 

• Phase 1 is to assess the safety profile of the drug being tested and its side effects. Involves a few healthy volunteers (<100) and needs several months to complete.
• Phase 2 - Efficacy and effectiveness of a drug is done here. This phase also determines the treating dosage and toxic levels. A placebo may also be used as a control arm. A few hundred healthy volunteers are required and this may take a few years to complete
• Phase 3 is Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) where therapeutic dosage is given to a large sample of people suffering from a specific ailment or disease and comparing with a control arm which use the placebo in  double blind fashion so that both the patient nor the investigator knows who is getting the tested drug and who is getting the placebo. This eliminates bias. This typically takes several years to complete. RCTs is the most robust form of evidence that a drug works. No Ayurvedic or Homeopathic drug has cleared this phase till date.
• Phase 4 is when the drug goes into the consumer market. Data is collected regarding long-term effects of the new drug, over longer durations and on larger numbers of people than could be achieved via clinical trials. Many drugs have been banned after reaching the consumer market if the side effects did not make the benefit-to-cost ratio favourable to the general public. The drugs were withdrawn fully or partially depending on its usage eg: Rofecoxib or Thalidomide.

At every phase, the investigators and researchers publish several scientific papers and review articles in reputed peer reviewed journals to support the use of a particular drug in a particular disease /ailment along with the side effects of the drugs that need to be factored in. Every drug has a lot of this information especially about adverse effects mentioned on the drug’s packaging. So the process is very transparent for all to know.

If you apply these principles to Ayurveda one can see why this is not really possible without proper basic science research first. If curcumin (present in Turmeric) is the active ingredient which has anti-cancer properties, you can't really test a recipe containing 100s of ingredients including turmeric without having a confounding bias in that study. It is curcumin only which needs to be extracted, studied and tested further.

Low quality/ non-existent basic science research leads to low quality clinical research. Moreover a lot of “Ayurvedic research” is shrouded in mystery with many of their theses filled with fantastical tales and engaging anecdotes to cater to the lowest common denominator in intelligence. Basically dumbing down science by oversimplification so that they can sell the drugs.

Ayurveda is not completely ‘pseudo-science’. It is an ancient science that needs to be validated. It is anecdotal and still has to stand the tests of modern science. Unless you test using modern scientific methods and disprove all of ayurvedic medicine claims, you cannot call it pseudo-science.

Some people are testing ayurvedic medicines but they are publishing their results in - what the  scientists call - ‘dubious journals’ that are not reliable. This is making people doubt the scientific methods used in ayurvedic research. And most of the ayurvedic practitioners are refusing to submit their ‘medicines’ for clinical trials. This is not the correct way to authenticate these medicines.

Unless we test the ayurvedic medicines using modern scientific methods and publish the results in high quality journals, people refuse to accept them as ‘genuine’. Still some people use them and suffer as a result.

Some even say there can be side effects for modern medicine too. I agree!

But at least you know what you are dealing with when you go for mainstream medicines because they are thoroughly tested in clinical trials. They say a known devil is better than an unknown angel. You can manage these side effects with regard to modern medicine!

So there is no question that we rejected them without analyzing them thoroughly. The author is making baseless allegations.

The author mentions a private medical centre, Mayo Clinic that integrates other medical practices with modern medicines. Private medical centres do this to attract all sorts of people from all over the world. This is a great business tactic. 

He also mentions Google who invited a spiritual leader who propagates pseudo-science. With Sunder Pichai as CEO what else can you expect from them? And to engage the global audience, you have to play such   games and gimmicks. Despite several doctors and scientists exposing this guru's pseudo-scientific endeavours*, if you still think  this is okay and give it as an example to support your argument, that doesn't cut ice with scientists.

Irrational people occur everywhere. Just because some Western audience courts him doesn't make him an authority in science.  

*Sadhguru advocates for using mercury in traditional Indian medicine, even though the international Minamata Convention on Mercury has banned its use. He has also claimed that he can solidify mercury at room temperature.

Sadhguru has been criticized for claiming that lunar eclipses can negatively affect the body's energy.

https://badscience.in/sadhguru/

https://www.vox.com/23206916/sadhguru-explained-save-the-soil-modi

Can faith heal? The author claims countless abodes of spirituality  have seen illnesses cured!

" Evidence please!" 

Mere mentioning of things doesn't convince scientists. 

Okay, next time you get Covid, go to those places you mentioned and get cured.  Never go to a hospital or any medical professional. Don't take any medicines. Your faith will heal you.

The author says science cannot answer eternal questions.

Right.  Science is limited by human mind inadequacies. The same  ones put a check on other things that a mind deals with too like philosophy, spirituality, alternative medical medical practices and several other things. 

But science is better than the other ones because at least it provides genuine evidence to what it says. 

The other things imagine a few things, bring untested and unverified stories to fill the gaps  in knowledge and ask us to trust them. Sorry, as the most evolved creatures, with a supportive mind, we can't do that!

People say science cannot solve all the problems and doesn't answer all the questions human minds pose. True! But think about this: This universe started with a Big Bang ( according to one theory - which is not yet proved!) some 14 Billion years ago. But science is just a few hundred years old.

The universe in which we find ourselves is about 14,000,000,000 years old, planet Earth is about 5,000,000,000 years old, the species Homo sapiens, to which we belong, 300,000 years old, and modern science a mere 500 years old ( all approximate, not exact years) . 

Science ( the process with which we try to study and understand this universe) is still in its infancy. It has to learn a lot, study a lot, think a lot, experiment a lot and then only it can come up with all the answers we are seeking right now. How can you expect a child to solve all the problems of his ancestors? And answer the questions posed by his great, great, great, great grandfathers? Is it appropriate to even expect such a thing? I don't think so.

There is science ( the laws that govern this universe)  every millimeter and Angstrom of this universe. And the universe is unimaginably  vast! But the scientists are so few!  How can the limited number of scientists read the language this universe is written in such a short time?

Moreover, there are more pressing problems like saving lives, more food production for the ever increasing population. We can’t waste our time on less important ones. But we get ridiculed for our choices of problems!

We should be amazed at how we have been able to get so far in understanding the things in this universe despite our inadequacies! Science is doing its best with the limited resources it has to both answer the questions and solve the problems. As the time goes by, I am pretty sure, it will succeed more and more. Please have patience! Give science some time.

According to scientists, there are many, many phenomena that science can’t currently explain for purely practical reasons: they’re too difficult or dangerous or expensive or time-consuming to investigate. But there is no genuine phenomenon we know of which can’t be explained in principle by science.
When these obstacles are removed, science can slowly move forward and explain the things you think are beyond science now. 

And let me assure you when science answers these Qs, they will not be silly stories but universe-shivering true facts.

A slow, steady and authentic process is better than untested and hasty explanations that don't make any sense.

https://kkartlab.in/group/some-science/forum/topics/science-will-an...

This person says gyaan is wider whereas the vigyan of even Nobel laureates and scientists  is narrow because of their super specializations. But the superspecialists like us went through the broader base of all gyaan before becoming specialists, taking one step at a time. Do you think we became superspecilists without a broader base?

All the fields of science are interconnected now and are no longer limited to narrower knowledge of earlier times.  The fields of science are interconnected and often overlap with each other, as they collectively work to explore and understand different aspects of the natural world. Scientists are working in collaborative ways to achieve maximum and best results but by using scientific methods, not  short cuts.

 We are open minded but our minds are open to only vigyan and genuine stuff and  not thrash. 

"Truths may lie beyond  double -blind studies and are accessible only through experience. "

How you analyse and interpret that experience is more important. Just because a person is 'experienced' doesn't make him an expert.

If two people see an image in the dark and if one hallucinates it as a ghost and therefore thinks ghosts exist and if the other one analyses why such things happen ( https://kkartlab.in/group/some-science/forum/topics/science-and-the... ), whose experience do you count as  trustworthy?

The Sidhu controversy: Calling a spade a spade doesn't harm scientific integrity. 

How can you express a fact appropriately? Oh, yes you can smile, put your hand on the other person's shoulder caringly, request him/her not to get annoyed and think about what you say with a cool mind but still ...  you have to tell the person the shocking part of it which might undo everything you did before telling him/her that! 

No amount of sugar coating will take away the bitterness of raw facts when people's minds are still lodged in ancient times! This is the fact I realized while dealing with EI when tackling pseudo-science and other absurdities.

They say it is important to have a high  EQ to be happy around people and have good relations with them. And high IQ to succeed in research! In the field of science communication, it seems, you are dead if you don't have a good EQ! That is why the field of Science Communication  looks like a graveyard most of the time!

Hmm, my dear friends,  we deal with high IQs, and medium  EQs in science.

You can analyse the situation and feelings of others but ... yes another ' but' here ... can you ask for forgiveness or apologize for mentioning the facts to maintain good equations with them? Or ask the person to forget what you say? How silly that looks!

You cannot give 25% or 50% concessions or reduce the facts to mere useless words to have good equations ! Equations are equations and you have to mention them exactly as they are!

Isn't it  important for people around a scientist to have high EQs too to understand a scientific point of view and facts?

When you are trained to be like a scientist, you cannot act like a good orator or actor with high social skills and do 'baseless sweet -talk' to connect with people. Can you reduce your critical thinking abilities and downsize your facts or manipulate numbers to give ground to others?  No, you cannot do that in science! 

If others feel bad about you mentioning a fact what can you do about it? 

• In 2022, China published 898,949 scientific papers, while the United States published 457,335.