What Have Believers Done to Help there Fellow Man/Woman ?

[Indigo Child]

My teacher once said to me, and his words ring very true. If you look at only 500 years of history,
it is clear the West is at the top of civilisation. If you look at 5000 years of history is is clear that
the East is at the top of civilisation and the West has barely even started to walk. Everything that
characterizes civilisation first appears in the East in the history of civilisation. Planned cities, philosophy,
science, industry, roads, hospitals, democracy, iron, steel, literature, ecology, chemistry
arts, sanitation, engineering, medicine etc etc

The East is far older than the West is and far more wiser. It is only in modern times due to colonialism
that the East has been set back and is redeveloping. However, it won't take long, before the East is back
at the top.

[ProfWag]

A proper valid argument in comparing Western medicine and Ayurveda and Yoga is to look at the efficacy of their treatment. Western medicine
cannot cure arthritis, heart disease, diabetes, cancer and aids. Ayurveda and Yoga can, and I have already posted many articles showing it can.
So hands down Ayurveda and Yoga win. Western medicine is lagging behind.

You have done no such thing. Not once in any article you posted did you show that yoga and ayurveda cures arthritis, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and aids. All your articles have suggested is it can help treat, but the empiricle evidence is clear that your ayurveda and yoga do not cure said diseases.
This is really getting frustrating that you simply don't know the difference between the words "cure" and "treat." Per Webster's:
Cure: a complete or permanent solution or remedy <seeking a cure for unemployment>
- to deal with in a way that eliminates or rectifies
- to restore to health, soundness, or normality b : to bring about recovery from <cure a disease>

Treat: : to care for or deal with medically or surgically <treat a disease>

[really?]

A proper valid argument in comparing Western medicine and Ayurveda and Yoga is to look at the efficacy of their treatment. Western medicine
cannot cure arthritis, heart disease, diabetes, cancer and aids. Ayurveda and Yoga can, and I have already posted many articles showing it can.
So hands down Ayurveda and Yoga win. Western medicine is lagging behind.

You have done no such thing. Not once in any article you posted did you show that yoga and ayurveda cures arthritis, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and aids. All your articles have suggested is it can help treat, but the empiricle evidence is clear that your ayurveda and yoga do not cure said diseases.
This is really getting frustrating that you simply don't know the difference between the words "cure" and "treat." Per Webster's:
Cure: a complete or permanent solution or remedy <seeking a cure for unemployment>
- to deal with in a way that eliminates or rectifies
- to restore to health, soundness, or normality b : to bring about recovery from <cure a disease>

Treat: : to care for or deal with medically or surgically <treat a disease>

So hands down Ayurveda and Yoga win. Western medicine is lagging behind.

It's peculiar how IC usually resorts to this vain attempt to win every argument as if they are the final authority.

It also brings me back to the main point of the OP in that it only appears skeptics are the ones that raise the red flag.

[Indigo Child]

Again, I not going to enter into a pointless debate on the semantics of
cure vs treatment. I have shown evidence now that Yoga and Ayurveda
can reverse many diseases and in some cases have even cured disease.
In the case of diabetes, the article showed how the person insulin levels
retured to normal and they did not require any medication anymore. In the
case of AIDS, the artcle showed that the doctor was able to succesfully reverse
AIDS and the person tested for HIV negative after the treatment. In the cancer
articles, it showed how several people were cured of cancer using the mercury
and metal based medicine, when the allopathic doctors had given up on them.

Stop pretending like you've not been given this information.

Based on the evidence we have so far Ayurveda and Yoga do a far better job in
treating AND curing disease than allopathic medicine. Case closed.

[really?]

Again, I not going to enter into a pointless debate on the semantics of
cure vs treatment. I have shown evidence now that Yoga and Ayurveda
can reverse many diseases and in some cases have even cured disease.
In the case of diabetes, the article showed how the person insulin levels
retured to normal and they did not require any medication anymore. In the
case of AIDS, the artcle showed that the doctor was able to succesfully reverse
AIDS and the person tested for HIV negative after the treatment. In the cancer
articles, it showed how several people were cured of cancer using the mercury
and metal based medicine, when the allopathic doctors had given up on them.

Stop pretending like you've not been given this information.

Based on the evidence we have so far Ayurveda and Yoga do a far better job in
treating AND curing disease than allopathic medicine. Case closed.

It's not semantics there are many definitions in the dictionary for the word 'cure'. WE [I] just wanted to know which definition you were using.

[ProfWag]

Indigo Child, you say you are a skeptic. I say if you keep posting these articles without giving them proper representation, then you are definitely not a skeptic.
You say ayurveda cured AIDS, "case closed." Well, let's just look at the article you presented for your evidence. Here is a quote from that article: "Despite this, whether AIDS and Rajayakshma are the same disease is a contentious issue. Dr Shanthakumar, however, believes they are and says the treatment used for Rajayakshma can be applied fruitfully in the war against HIV/AIDS."
First, there's not even solid evidence that what he is treating is AIDS! Most think it's something called "Rajayakshma."
Next, I did a google search on your Dr G. Shanthakumar and AIDS or ayurveda. Know what I found? Nothing in the first 10 pages of hits.
If he is doing what you claim, then you are going to have to present better evidence before we tell the world there is a Doctor in India who has the cure. Telling us AIDS can be cured, "case closed" is pretty irresponsible of you, I think.

[Indigo Child]

Selective reading again, eh

Dr Shanthakumar first treated an AIDS victim in 1992: "About eight years ago, an AIDS patient met me. I applied the ayurvedic therapy keeping his symptoms in mind. He would collapse with high temperature once a week, though he did not harbor malarial parasites. After a month`s treatment, the fever and shivering subsided. After three months, his weight increased from 43 kg to 48 kg. After ten months, he tested negative for HIV.

So what does this say, step by step:

1) AIDS victim goes to Dr Shantakumar
2) Dr Shantakumar treats him using Ayurvedic therapy for Rajayksha(king of diseases)
3) AIDS victim heals.
4) 10 months later AIDS victim tests negative for HIV

Conclusion:

1) Rajayksha is AIDS
2) Ayurveda cures AIDS

It cannot get anymore simpler.

[really?]

Selective reading again, eh

Dr Shanthakumar first treated an AIDS victim in 1992: "About eight years ago, an AIDS patient met me. I applied the ayurvedic therapy keeping his symptoms in mind. He would collapse with high temperature once a week, though he did not harbor malarial parasites. After a month`s treatment, the fever and shivering subsided. After three months, his weight increased from 43 kg to 48 kg. After ten months, he tested negative for HIV.

So what does this say, step by step:

1) AIDS victim goes to Dr Shantakumar
2) Dr Shantakumar treats him using Ayurvedic therapy for Rajayksha(king of diseases)
3) AIDS victim heals.
4) 10 months later AIDS victim tests negative for HIV

Conclusion:

1) Rajayksha is AIDS
2) Ayurveda cures AIDS

It cannot get anymore simpler.

First you independently corroborate the patient had AIDS with more then one outside source. Secondly you don't take somebodies word for it.

[ProfWag]

Selective reading again, eh

Dr Shanthakumar first treated an AIDS victim in 1992: "About eight years ago, an AIDS patient met me. I applied the ayurvedic therapy keeping his symptoms in mind. He would collapse with high temperature once a week, though he did not harbor malarial parasites. After a month`s treatment, the fever and shivering subsided. After three months, his weight increased from 43 kg to 48 kg. After ten months, he tested negative for HIV.

So what does this say, step by step:

1) AIDS victim goes to Dr Shantakumar
2) Dr Shantakumar treats him using Ayurvedic therapy for Rajayksha(king of diseases)
3) AIDS victim heals.
4) 10 months later AIDS victim tests negative for HIV

Conclusion:

1) Rajayksha is AIDS
2) Ayurveda cures AIDS

It cannot get anymore simpler.

Yes, it appears you practice selective reading as you completely skipped by: "Despite this, whether AIDS and Rajayakshma are the same disease is a contentious issue."
A doctor that can't even show whether or not his patient had AIDS? Oh yea, I'd go to him/her...not.

[really?]

Selective reading again, eh

Dr Shanthakumar first treated an AIDS victim in 1992: "About eight years ago, an AIDS patient met me. I applied the ayurvedic therapy keeping his symptoms in mind. He would collapse with high temperature once a week, though he did not harbor malarial parasites. After a month`s treatment, the fever and shivering subsided. After three months, his weight increased from 43 kg to 48 kg. After ten months, he tested negative for HIV.

So what does this say, step by step:

1) AIDS victim goes to Dr Shantakumar
2) Dr Shantakumar treats him using Ayurvedic therapy for Rajayksha(king of diseases)
3) AIDS victim heals.
4) 10 months later AIDS victim tests negative for HIV

Conclusion:

1) Rajayksha is AIDS
2) Ayurveda cures AIDS

It cannot get anymore simpler.

Let's define Rajayksha (king of diseases) shall we ? Here's what I've found:

Tuberculosis is one of the most highly contagious diseases to have afflicted mankind. . According to Hindu mythology, the Moon that can be called as the king among the satellites of the earth was afflicted by a curse of Brahma. Brahma is the creator and hence the name is Rajayakshma. Tuberculosis can be called as the king of diseases http://www.indianetzone.com/23/tubercul ... akshma.htm

http://www.ayurveda-herbal-medicine.com ... rajya.html

I'll give this doctor Shantakumar the benefit of the doubt because he or she may have spoken first in some native language and something got lost in translation; however for you IC there's no excuse for not doing some fact checking to see if Rajayksha(king of diseases) could have been the name for a more contagious disease.

[Indigo Child]

It sounds like to me that Rajayksha simply means the worst of diseases, and some
people have interpreted this to be tuberculosis. Incidentally, AIDS victims will almost
most likely develop tuberculosis, so there is a connection there. Dr Shantakumar is basing
his conclusion that Rajayskha is AIDS based on the symptoms and the common causes for
the disease.

The major symptoms are:

(1) drastic loss of weight
(2) fatigue and lethargy
(3) susceptibility to allergies and contagious diseases
(4) skin irritations
(5) bronchial disorders, often leading to tuberculosis of the lungs
(6) damage to intestinal flora resulting in diarrhoea, dysentery, gastritis and
(7) wide fluctuations in body temperature.

Significantly, the root causes of this disease are:

(1) unhygienic sexual practices such as anal intercourse
(2) indiscriminate intercourse with multiple partners
(3) not cleaning the genitals after coitus
(4) washing the body with contaminated or dirty water
(5) bestiality
(6) contaminated blood.

I can see why Dr Shantakumar thinks that Rajayksha and AIDS must be the same disease. But what is even more important here is,
Dr Shantakumar has allegedly cured an AIDS victim using the Ayurvedic treatment for Rajayksha and treated dozens more. If Rajayksha
is not AIDS, then why are AIDS victims responding well to treatment of Rajayksha?

[really?]

It sounds like to me that Rajayksha simply means the worst of diseases, and some
people have interpreted this to be tuberculosis. Incidentally, AIDS victims will almost
most likely develop tuberculosis, so there is a connection there. Dr Shantakumar is basing
his conclusion that Rajayskha is AIDS based on the symptoms and the common causes for
the disease.

The major symptoms are:

(1) drastic loss of weight
(2) fatigue and lethargy
(3) susceptibility to allergies and contagious diseases
(4) skin irritations
(5) bronchial disorders, often leading to tuberculosis of the lungs
(6) damage to intestinal flora resulting in diarrhoea, dysentery, gastritis and
(7) wide fluctuations in body temperature.

Significantly, the root causes of this disease are:

(1) unhygienic sexual practices such as anal intercourse
(2) indiscriminate intercourse with multiple partners
(3) not cleaning the genitals after coitus
(4) washing the body with contaminated or dirty water
(5) bestiality
(6) contaminated blood.

I can see why Dr Shantakumar thinks that Rajayksha and AIDS must be the same disease. But what is even more important here is,
Dr Shantakumar has allegedly cured an AIDS victim using the Ayurvedic treatment for Rajayksha and treated dozens more. If Rajayksha
is not AIDS, then why are AIDS victims responding well to treatment of Rajayksha?

I thought you said AIDS was the king of diseases. Funny how you'll present Indian sites that confirm your opinions yet when present with an Indian site that explains what that word means you start singing a different tune.

o what does this say, step by step:

1) AIDS victim goes to Dr Shantakumar
2) Dr Shantakumar treats him using Ayurvedic therapy for Rajayksha(king of diseases)
3) AIDS victim heals.
4) 10 months later AIDS victim tests negative for HIV

Conclusion:

1) Rajayksha is AIDS
2) Ayurveda cures AIDS

It cannot get anymore simpler.

How about this for a simpler answer. You are wrong. Is that simple enough for you ?

[Indigo Child]

Try again.

Dr Shantakumar has allegedly cured an AIDS victim using the Ayurvedic treatment for Rajayksha and treated dozens more. If Rajayksha
is not AIDS, then why are AIDS victims responding well to treatment of Rajayksha?

[NinjaPuppy]

Try again.

Dr Shantakumar has allegedly cured an AIDS victim using the Ayurvedic treatment for Rajayksha and treated dozens more. If Rajayksha
is not AIDS, then why are AIDS victims responding well to treatment of Rajayksha?

Before putting any input into this topic, I wanted to see exactly where it might go. IMO, it is going nowhere fast and is on the verge of becoming a 'locked topic' but first I have a simple question.

Is Rajayksha misspelled?

All I can find on a Google search is rajayakshama. Rajayakshama comes up in a Google search as Tuberculosis. Tuberculosis is not AIDS.

Now.... I will spend the better part of my morning reading a buttload of provided links to see if my search is absolutely off the mark. Meanwhile, I expect everyone participating here to keep your comments limited to the information provided.

[NinjaPuppy]

First link: The following shows a clinical study where diabetes is cured:
www.ayurvedam.com/pdf/ayurvdiabetes.pdf

Due to the fact that there are too many non-English words in this article, it is very hard to comprehend.

Second link: Parkinson's Disease (Kampavata): Understanding the Ayurvedic Approach
http://www.ayurvedacollege.com/articles ... /Parkinson

Both articles do seem to show that ayurevda can help to relieve the symptoms of both diseases.

Then we go into a question on pg. 4:

A question that comes to mind, what affects the cure ? Is it a mystical life force known as Prana ? Or is it allopathic administration of chemicals that affect the cure.

Great question. At least I think it's a great question. Unfortunately the topic starts to go downhill (IMPO) from this point on. The last two pages consist of "Yes it is!", "No it isn't!", "I win!", "No you lose!". WTF???

Meanwhile I'm confused as heck since one article does give proof that there is an alternate cure to diabeties but then again, a healthier lifestyle and better diet can also do that in less severe cases. It also seems that ayurevda can lessen the symptoms of Parkinsons and increase the quality of life when combined with some modern medicine.

Where the heck does it say that TB and AIDS are the same disease? I see no evidence that ayurevda cures AIDS. One patient responding favorably does not constitute a cure for AIDS. Especially when I see that the claimed disease is TB and not AIDS. Did I miss something here?