how to be a "quack".

Image Source: www.ayurvedabooks.net

According to Wordnet Search provided by Princeton University, a "quack" is defined as "an untrained person who pretends to be a physician and who dispenses medical advice." This idea of quackery is very apparent in the complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) field, especially to those who don't understand the logic behind it. Truth be told, when I hear the word quack the first image that pops in my head is a cocaine-addict spreading the word of God after chugging a fifth of vodka. Essentially, I think of a person who is out of their mind. Needless to say, I get a little bothered when people try to define CAM as quackery due to my own preconceived notions of the word "quack". But what is it about CAM and its disciples that make it viewed as false and medically unqualified?

In Jean Langford's article, "Medical Mimesis: Healing Signs of a Cosmopolitan 'Quack'", Dr. Mistry is introduced as a man with great medical integrity and possesses a knowledge in which he can diagnose a patient simply by reading their pulse. This idea that a diagnosis can be made only from the reading the pulse is beyond anything any medical practitioner has ever heard of because the body is such an intricate network. Because our body is so complex, it can be affected by various factors in various areas and can therefore be difficult to understand what is really going on. However, according to Dr. Mistry, he has been able to cure 50% or more of the patients' symptoms. Dr. Mistry also brings up an interesting point, which correlates with how society handles medical problems nowadays. He states to Langford, "I don't listen to people... what is important is what his pulse is telling me..." and he believes that, "patients are prejudiced by allopathic, that is biomedical, notions." He also goes on to say that, "symptoms fluctuate according to the individual and the individual's psychological state." (Langford, pg. 28) The flaw of biomedicine is that it disregards a patient's psychological state which can either stress or de-stress symptoms. It is strictly based on the mechanics of the body. Especially now with the availability of medical resources such as WebMD, some people often find themselves looking up the symptoms of certain diseases and even developing them. This is why I agree with Dr. Mistry in his statement about patients' symptoms and their psychological states. With this statement, he proves that the mind is a powerful thing.

After reading the article, the reader comes to realize that Dr. Mistry does not encompass medical authenticity. His actual method of healing stems from the "faith that [he] inspires in patients... that contributes to their cures." (Langford, pg. 36) What we are looking at then is not traditional folk medicine, but a placebo effect instead. Wordnet by Princeton defines "placebo effect" as, "any effect that seems to be a consequence of administering a placebo; the change is usually beneficial and is assumed result from the person's faith in the treatment or preconceptions about what the experimental drug was supposed to do." It is unclear whether Dr. Mistry really is medically trained and if so, does that mean we can qualify him as a quack? He takes the mind's powerful effects on the body into consideration and tweaks the patients' thoughts so that their goal is to overcome their symptoms through "medication". Ultimately, it seems that many patients seen by Dr. Mistry have been healed and so what he does must count as a form of therapy.

Though Dr. Mistry may epitomize "medical gimmickery" with his photo albums and certificates adorning his office, I believe that he does his work in good intention. However, this is not what Ayurveda embodies. There are no medical gimmicks, no mimicry, no sense of falseness or quackery. Ayurveda should be viewed as complementary to biomedicine in the sense that its medical techniques promote good health and should be used to keep up good health and prolong life. To my family and I, Ayurveda is not used as a curative form of action, but a preventative form of action instead. My mother found an article not too long ago that implores Ayurvedic medical techniques pertaining to pain management. The article lists six herbs that contain inflammation-fighting compounds that aid in easing pain, especially those who suffer from inflammation-related conditions such as arthritis, back and neck pain, and tendonitis. The author of the article, Cathy Wong, goes on to explain that, "Although not as fast-acting as standard pain medication, such herbs may significantly diminish your pain when used regularly." (Wong, 2009) This further implies how Ayurvedic medicine and CAM in general complement biomedicine.

Many people dislike the idea of Ayurveda simply because it was founded as a branch of Hinduism, thus supposedly mixing science with religion (although, Hinduism is technically not a religion, but I digress). Vincanne Adams addresses the issue of science and religion in her article, "The Sacred in the Scientific: Ambiguous Practices of Science in Tibetan Medicine". She claims that one of the key issues of "scientific validity" is based on separating traditional practices and knowledge with, "categories of 'belief' and 'superstition' -- a process that requires constant deliberation over what is deemed 'knowledge' versus 'belief' and what is deemed 'theory' versus 'religion'." (Adams, pg. 564) The concept of visibility is important in regards to science, where the scientific approach leads to the truth is "self-evident" and the effects can be seen. Since Ayurveda is based under Hindu principles, a few medical techniques also involve the use of "chakras" or wheels of spiritual energy throughout the body (especially used in yoga). However, because the chakras are not seen to the human eye, they are deemed superstitious and opposite of knowledge. But if doctors and scientists continue to establish a fine line between what can constitute as religion and science, they are closing doors to opportunities of truly studying the body and mind of human beings. As already mentioned, the mind is very powerful and can have equally powerful effects on the body and the process of healing. Just because we cannot see negative energy does not mean that it does not take a toll on our body and mind.

In conclusion, I do not view Dr. Mistry as an alcoholic religious fanatic with a coke problem and thereby cannot consider him to be a quack. Granted, that is just my definition. However, I believe that Dr. Mistry has an understanding of what he is doing, especially psychologically, and therefore believe that he does administer medical help to his patients with knowledge of what is he doing. At the same time, I do not believe that Dr. Mistry is culturally aware of Ayurveda and its principles because Ayurveda is used for more so for preventative measures as opposed to curative and can be complementary to biomedicine. To me, everything isn't set in a black-and-white setting. I believe combining religious concepts of the body (i.e. chakras) and science can really open windows of opportunities in the aspect of good medicine.

Sources:
WordNet Search
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/

Herbs for Pain Management
http://altmedicine.about.com/od/healthconditionsdisease/a/pain_herbs.htm