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

[NinjaPuppy]

[Indigo Child]

[Indigo Child]

[ProfWag]

[Indigo Child]

Hmm, nope. I am actually quite surprised I have to read it for you, when your
first language is English.

Again, step by step:

1.Dr Shantakumar believes that Rajaykshma is AIDS
2. Dr Shantakumar treats actual AIDS victims using Ayurvedic treatment for Rajaykshma
3. The AIDS victim respond well, one is even cured completely.

If I have to explain this any further, I will certainly have to question your intelligence.

[ProfWag]

Will someone other than Indigo child please read the following and tell us your opinion. Did the Dr. 1) treat a patient with AIDS or 2) did the Dr. treat a patient with symptoms of AIDS that may or may not have actually been the AIDS virus? Also, if you wouldn't mind answering, do you read this that the Dr. did not test the patient for the AIDS virus? Again, anyone but Indigo Child is welcome to answer honestly.

INTRODUCTION
Ayurvedic practitioner Dr G. Shanthakumar, based in Mumbai, India, claims that ayurveda identified AIDS over 2,000 years ago. The ancient malady was termed Rajayakshma (the king of diseases) and its symptoms were identical to AIDS going by the descriptions of Vagbhata in Ashtanga Hridayam (Chikitsitam section) and its supplementary text, the Ashtanga Sangraham, as well as in another ayurvedic classic, Charaka Samhita (Nidanam section).

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.

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.

[Indigo Child]

[NinjaPuppy]

[Indigo Child]

[ProfWag]

[Indigo Child]

I cannot see any critical thinking here. What I see is very poor reading skills and
hallucination, as in you are seeing things in the article that are not there lol -
Is this what you skeptics call critical thinking? lol

He treated AIDS paitents. Do you know what this means? It means people who
have AIDS.

Here, let me put in big letters for you of what the article says:



So what does that say, the doctor is saying he treated patients who had AIDS. The actual disease called AIDS. You know....
like.... people who have AIDS. Patient + AIDS = AIDS patient. Do you want me to use a digram or something?

Any normal person can follow what the article says.

1. Dr Shantakumar believes the Ayurvedic disease Rajayskhma is AIDS.
2. He believes that he can use the Ayurvedic treatment for Rajayshma against AIDS
3. He treats AIDS patients(i.e., patients with AIDS) using Ayurvedic treatment for Rajaykshma

By the way Ninjapuppy was not agreeing with you. She was pointing out that there is indeed a reference in the
article that the patient was tested for HIV.

Prowag, is English your first language?

[really?]

[ProfWag]

And let me put it in big letters for you Indigo:



This means that Doctor doesn't have a clue what the hell he's treating. Case closed.

[Indigo Child]

Some simple logic here(others call it reading... but hey)

Dr Shantakumar believes Rajaykshma is AIDS,
he does not believe AIDS is Rajayshma.

He has said very clearly because he believes Rajaykshma is AIDS,
his hypothesis is that the Ayurvedic treatment for Rajaykshma can be
used against AIDS and HIV. Indeed, he was able to prove his hypothesis
by curing an AIDS patient.

The fact that you are unable to accept something so explicitly stated in the
article throws into question everything you say about anything. It clearly shows
you cannot read.

[Indigo Child]