The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 19 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 4 of the 24 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines
Open accessAbstract
<section class="abstract">In the last decade, a controversy has arisen over a specific type of herbo-mineral ayurvedic preparations called bhasmas (Skt. bhasman). The controversy mainly concerned serious complications or even the death of patients after having taken these medicines. Since these medicines were metal-based preparations, and specifically included lead or mercury, their toxicity was interpreted as causing the patients’ suffering. In response to that, in public discourse a plethora of writing on the issue of toxicity in ayurvedic medicines ensued, both accusatory and defensive in tone. This laid out the potential for their condemnation, with serious implications for their credibility, not to speak of their markets. This article attempts to analyse this writing, focusing mainly on the academic publications, from the perspective of the politics of knowledge. It will argue that hierarchies in the epistemologies of medical knowledge systems guide the scientific analysis of these herbo-mineral preparations, some of which contain mercury, illustrating how this happens through publications that are unequivocally critical of bhasmas, those that are defensive of them, and those that indicate a median position. It will also analyse the possible regulatory and manufacturing regimes that can emerge when a certain kind of balanced analysis informs policy-making. Focusing on the modes of translation between epistemologies of different knowledge systems that have characterised the process of making ‘traditional’ knowledge contemporary, it shows how this principally reflects the hierarchy between dominant and marginal knowledge on an everyday basis, affecting most production and marketing decisions, that backfire not only on specific products, but affect an evaluation of the system as a whole. </section>
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
61 Own interpretation · 12 Sources not found · 7 No full text of the sources · 6 Own result · 3 No basis given · 2 Supported · 2 Partly supported · 1 Not checked yet · accuracy not yet measured
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As has been demonstrated in an earlier section, the process of making a bhasma is an intricate one that embodies a combination of complex chemical and biological changes in the interactions between the herbal and mineral substances being used for the medicine.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Construction of Toxicity in Different Systems of Medicine
boostedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In most of the articles analysed above, it is clear that the frame used to analyse and evaluate toxicity in ayurvedic medicines is completely alien to Ayurveda in terms of structure and content.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Construction of Toxicity in Different Systems of Medicine
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet, most of the analysed articles, particularly of the first category mentioned above, do not recognise these parameters.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Construction of Toxicity in Different Systems of Medicine
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Within the ayurvedic community, the issue of pharmacological rigour with respect to manufacturing standards of the medicines being made in modern factories, or pharmacovigilance, defined by the WHO as 'the science and activities relating to the detection, assessment, understanding and preasian medicine 8 (2013) 153-179 vention of adverse effects or any other drug-related problem' ,51 is now a”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > New Regulations and their Application by Manufacturers
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It will argue that hierarchies in the epistemologies of medical knowledge systems guide the scientific analysis of these herbo-mineral preparations, some of which contain mercury, illustrating how this happens through publications that are unequivocally critical of bhasmas, those that are defensive of them, and those that indicate a median position.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Abstract
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While this kind of perception seems to be positive, it actually serves to undermine these comprehensive knowledge systems, and their systematic epistemologies that govern diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > The Background
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“any generalisation that seeks to equate the latter with ayurvedic medicine in general can be very flawed.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > The Background
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Ayurvedic medicines may be marketed in India as classical and as patent or proprietary formulations according to law.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, the expectation of their medicinal properties is that of an epistemological difference of understanding the meaning of illness in a body and how a medicinal preparation intervenes to mitigate it.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > New Regulations and their Application by Manufacturers
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, the process of making the medicines indicates a difference in the understanding of minerals/metals, their combination with herbal substances, and their consequent chemical transformation.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > New Regulations and their Application by Manufacturers
hedgedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet, the confidence with which such analysis is offered by scientists and, even more so, published by reputed international journals shows that there is scant recognition of epistemological frames outside those of modern bio-chemistry, which inform biomedicine.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Construction of Toxicity in Different Systems of Medicine
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 57
- It may state two separate claims as one. 36
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Singh and Rai carefully analyse hitherto unexplored dimensions of the chemical compositions of carbonaceous materials in bhasmas in order to better understand the processes of standardisation that would be applicable to them.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Articles that Emphasise the Non-toxicity of Bhasmas
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Singh and Rai 2012 source
The Abstract says the study uses spectroscopy and thermal measurements to identify carbonaceous material in Naga Bhasma and investigate the role of natural precursors. It also says the resulting understanding of the preparation mechanism could help standardize Bhasma medicines. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“However, in contrast to the other works on Bhasma medicine, the work [for the] first time suggests the presence of organic matters in Bhasma medicine, but remains short for their identification.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Articles that Emphasise the Non-toxicity of Bhasmas
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Singh and Rai 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper’s discussion of its earlier Naga Bhasma report says that report first suggested organic matter but did not identify it (reference 10; page unavailable). The cited 2012 paper calls itself an extension that addresses that gap and concludes that it identifies hydrogenated amorphous carbon. Thus, the claim fits the earlier report, not the cited paper’s own findings. (LLM, conf=0.88)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In this context, however, it is worthwhile to refer to the position taken by Mao and Desai, who agree with Saper et al.54 on the public health hazard of ayurvedic medicines that demonstrated high levels of heavy metal content.They, however, caution against policy conclusions that recommend stringent across-the-board testing by third parties.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > New Regulations and their Application by Manufacturers
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Mao and Desai 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Saper et al. 2008 source
The COMMENT passage reports that all metal-containing products exceeded at least one acceptable daily-intake standard, supporting the public-health hazard attributed to Saper et al. The caution against blanket third-party testing is attributed to Mao and Desai, not to Saper et al.; Saper et al. instead recommend independent third-party testing. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“In this context, Ramakrishna reports that at a Continuing Medical Education Programme on 'Research Methodology for Ayurveda Academicians' held at the prestigious BYL Nair Charitable Hospital, many of the participants were not very enthusiastic about the concept of reporting ADR and the idea of the NPC-ASU.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > New Regulations and their Application by Manufacturers
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Ramakrishna 2012 source
In the paper’s discussion of adverse drug reaction monitoring, Ramakrishna says the participants were not very enthusiastic about the concept or the NPC-ASU programme. The opening passage identifies them as attendees of the CME programme conducted at TNMC and BYL Nair Ch. Hospital. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this respect, it can be safely stated that the procedures for ayurvedic medicines, developed as they have been over the last 50 years or so, leave room for more regulation.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > A New Regulatory and Manufacturing Framework for New Medicines
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result of this concern, a National Pharmacovigilance Committee for Ayurveda, Siddha, and Unani (NPC-ASU) was set up in India in 2008 along the lines set by the WHO, to begin with reportage of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR), which could then be followed up with the Department of AYUSH (the acronym for Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani medicine, Siddha medicine, Sowa Rigpa, and Homeopathy).”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > New Regulations and their Application by Manufacturers
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A statement the paper makes itself — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“that they are prescription medicines not to be taken over-the-counter (OTC)”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > The Background
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A statement the paper makes itself — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“that all suggested precautions should be followed while they are being used.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > The Background
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If such a medicine is to be evaluated for toxicity then the parameters of safety have to be the ones deployed by Ayurveda, which does have these available in its texts.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > The Background
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the understanding of toxicity itself is a construct at two levels, the epistemological and the empirical.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > The Background
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“that they should preferably be prescribed according to the individual constitution-type of the patient”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > The Background
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The root cause lies in the realm of the epistemological divide that has characterised the continuous confrontations between biomedicine and older or so-called 'traditional' systems of medicine.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > The Background
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This has largely remained unchanged over the recent decades and affects the very parameters of scientific analysis that makes an appraisal of ayurvedic medicines.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > The Background
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The assumption therein is that toxicity can be defined only in a specific, i.e., 'scientific' manner, and any substance that fits their definition has to be toxic.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > The Background
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Three aspects of this debate can be identified.The first concerns the actual toxicity of the metal ingredients of these medicines.Based on that, the second controversy is over the interpretation of toxicity in different systems of knowledge, in this case mainly Ayurveda and biomedicine.The third aspect that emerges concerns the implications for the regulatory and manufacturing framework of ayurved”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > The Background
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This confidence needs to be challenged in order to demonstrate the discordance between the two frames of analysis, which exists due to the hegemonic position of biomedicine and a fundamental difference in the epistemologies of the two medical knowledge systems.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Construction of Toxicity in Different Systems of Medicine
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A statement the paper makes itself — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the two articles presented here concluded that the bhasmas tested were non-toxic-although always with the rider that this would be the case only if they were properly prepared and administered.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Articles that Emphasise the Non-toxicity of Bhasmas
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It has been argued elsewhere that it is the marketing strategy of ayurvedic medicines as OTC products by ayurvedic drug companies in India that is responsible for this perception.6”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > The Background
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] Dargan, 2008, ‘Heavy Metal Poisoning from Ayurvedic Traditional Medicines: An Emerging Problem?’, International Journal of Environment and Health source
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“scientific analysis of the pharmacological properties, or indeed an unreasonable amount of metal ingredients that could cause lead poisoning for instance, surely needs to posit itself more firmly within the epistemology of the pharmacological framework to which the medicine itself belongs.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Articles that Indicate Toxicity of Bhasmas10
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A statement the paper makes itself — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ayurveda's epistemology is not only about drug action in isolation, but about drug interaction with everything else that is ingested by the patient-food and drink.This is one place where the holism of Ayurveda is evident-that it takes into account the fact that the digestive system processes food, drink, and medicine together.It thus anticipates food-medicine reactions, and makes dietary”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > The Background
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While it is true that biomedicine, too, would follow these stages broadly, the parameters that comprise these stages-the very definition of the disease condition, in terms of the imbalance of humours, the line of treatment, and the expected outcomes-are fundamentally different in Ayurveda and have an internal consistency.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Construction of Toxicity in Different Systems of Medicine
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The author rightly concludes that since information of the chemical nature and consequently of the drug action of the intermediates is not available, the vaidya is probably practising with incomplete information, which would affect clinical outcomes, even when the drug is administered with utmost sincerity.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Articles that Emphasise the Non-toxicity of Bhasmas
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kapoor 2010
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Toxicity is as much a construct as an objective criterion; therefore, the reference points specific to the product ought to be considered whenever any analysis is being undertaken.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Articles that Emphasise the Non-toxicity of Bhasmas
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A statement the paper makes itself — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The development of standards in the history of biomedical pharmaceuticals has taken at least two centuries to be established.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > New Regulations and their Application by Manufacturers
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A statement the paper makes itself — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The epistemology of Ayurveda is derived from a philosophy of human beings' relationship with nature, aimed at a longer and healthier lifespan.It is empirically based on experience and the application of this knowledge over a very long period of time and in a manner in which practice both affirms the uniformity of principles and the necessity for diversity in practice.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > The Background
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the basis of this most fundamental aspect of its analysis, this academic article starts with a popular perception that all ayurvedic medicines are 'herbal' .It would have reflected an appropriate academic assessment had the authors investigated the distinctions that exist in Ayurveda between its different categories and forms of medicine-herbal and non-herbal.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Articles that Indicate Toxicity of Bhasmas10
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Kapoor's article35 is another case in point.An elaborate analysis of bhasmas from the historical, textual point of view, but with an emphasis on the pharmacological, it struggles between two positions.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Articles that Emphasise the Non-toxicity of Bhasmas
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kapoor 2010
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two damning conclusions are drawn in this article, exemplified in the above quote: first, that what is meant to be a herbal medicinal product actually contains heavy metals and second, that this implies a generalisation that all ayurvedic medicines are suspect of containing heavy metals.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Articles that Indicate Toxicity of Bhasmas10
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Second, in various texts, of which the Rasataraṅgiṇī is one of the best-known examples, the possible negative effects of bhasmas are identified.These result from poor preparation, incorrect administration, or even a reaction of the physical system to a bhasma that may not suit.For each of these negative effects the counter-strategies, some of which were already referred to above, are also clearly”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Articles that Emphasise the Non-toxicity of Bhasmas
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Rasataraṅgiṇī
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, to look for overwhelming evidence of lead poisoning or conjecture about its absence is meaningless.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Articles that Indicate Toxicity of Bhasmas10
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Herbo-mineral products are a very small proportion of the ayurvedic medicines manufactured and used in India.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is why ayurvedic practitioners are able to claim that their medicines have no 'side-effects'-because they have ruled them out through precise prescription practices to begin with.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > The Background
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“First, it must be noted that a number of the scholars referred to earlier in this article, as well as elsewhere,46 have pointed to the great risk posed by the aggressive marketing and advertising strategies adopted by ayurvedic companies in the last 100 years.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Marketing and Advertising
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bode 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The experience of using these medicines in clinical practice over a very long period of time (now even recognised in EU laws as 'long use')45 with a known history of efficacy and non-toxic impact among practising vaidyas when administered in these conditions, has to be part and parcel of any appraisal of these medicines.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Construction of Toxicity in Different Systems of Medicine
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Traditional Herbal Medicinal Product Directive 2004/24/EC
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This commodification of ayurvedic medicines, which has already been argued to have disengaged the patient and the medicine from the epistemology and proper practice of Ayurveda, now can actually harm the patient.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Marketing and Advertising
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There seems to be a serious disconnection between the two worlds of publishing, which could also indicate the hierarchies of power between them.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Articles that Emphasise the Non-toxicity of Bhasmas
hedgedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Very little of the Indian literature on the non-toxicity of bhasmas is cited in international publications on Ayurveda.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The implications of such generalisations, however, in terms of a scientific evaluation of Ayurveda demonstrating illegal toxicity levels of its medicines, proves damaging for the system as a whole.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Articles that Indicate Toxicity of Bhasmas10
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In no comparable kind of analysis would there be a confusion between, for example, a generic/'classical' formulation and a patented/'proprietary' one and that, too, with scant reference to the prescription, line of treatment, mode of administration, and expected outcomes of the very pharmaceutical that was being analysed.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Articles that Indicate Toxicity of Bhasmas10
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Additionally, these texts also constantly reiterate that enormous care needs to be taken in the preparation process, which indicates an awareness of how easily things can go wrong.31”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Articles that Emphasise the Non-toxicity of Bhasmas
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [31]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These articles are all actually concerned with a limited range of products available in the market as 'proprietary' medicines and quite rightly strive to point out their shortcomings in an effort to enable a more scientific understanding of their potential toxicity.This could well have been true had the generalisations not been made with respect to all ayurvedic medicines.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Articles that Indicate Toxicity of Bhasmas10
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By this I mean that there exists a hierarchy between different types of medical knowledge, created and maintained assiduously, and caused by the hegemonic position of the biomedical sciences over those of 'non-modern' knowledge systems.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Construction of Toxicity in Different Systems of Medicine
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While the title of the article implies 'ayurvedic drug systems' , she is actually analysing only the drug content of samples that were chosen both in terms of the specific products from manufacturers and the particular formulations identified.It is surprising that nowhere is this justified in terms of why the author specifically chose these and not others, etc., (a standard requirement in any”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Articles that Indicate Toxicity of Bhasmas10
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Methodologically, the means of arriving at knowledge in the two knowledge systems are fundamentally different, and all the research so far at either end has not been able to address this issue.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > The Background
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A statement the paper makes itself — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But the processes are known to be purificatory in their orientation, rendering the mineral or metal less and less toxic as the bhasma evolves toward its final preparation.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Construction of Toxicity in Different Systems of Medicine
boostedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The safety of the drug Tamra Bhasma reported may be attributed to [the] bhasmikaraṇa29 process which converts the metal into its specially desired chemical compound which eliminates the toxicity of the metal and has the necessary medicinal benefits.30”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Articles that Emphasise the Non-toxicity of Bhasmas
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Vahalia et al. 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When there are complications, as are bound to take place, as warned in classical ayurvedic texts, the entire knowledge system has to take the blame.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Articles that Indicate Toxicity of Bhasmas10
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The generalisations made in this article on the basis of thin evidence and conjectures are presented without an understanding of the issues on the ground.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Articles that Indicate Toxicity of Bhasmas10
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Several plants have been shown to alter bio-availability of allopathic drugs.Similarly when used in combination with allopathic drugs they may alter their pharmacodynamics.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Articles that Emphasise the Non-toxicity of Bhasmas
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Thatte et al. 1993
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“So, increase in body weight in both [the] toxicity and recovery study could suggest that there is no harmful effect of the test drugs on body function[s] as a whole.33”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Articles that Emphasise the Non-toxicity of Bhasmas
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sarkar et al. 2009
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ayurveda's epistemology spells out the character of the drug, the course of drug action, and the remedies for reaction, but it does not spell out how it knows these things, nor why certain actions and reactions take place.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > The Background
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Patwardhan, Warude, and Giresh point to two ways in which this can be tested: first, the original metal/mineral should not be recoverable from the final bhasma and second, it should have ultra-fine particles that float on water.7”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > The Background
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Patwardhan, Warude, and Giresh
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Based on this explanation it becomes easier to see why modern scientific analyses, bound as they are by their own epistemologies and empirical parameters, are unable to assess these medicines properly.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > The Background
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“it was observed that when administered orally and at designated therapeutic levels, there were no behavioural changes in the rats, no histopathological and other alterations, and no symptoms of serious toxicity.28”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Articles that Emphasise the Non-toxicity of Bhasmas
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Vahalia et al. 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Also, Kapoor points out how the use of metals in medicine has been widespread all over the world, including the Western world, until quite recently, albeit with self-conscious regulations; for instance, the certifying of arsenic trioxide by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with promyelocytic leukaemia that is resistant to the chemotherapy drug ATRA (All Trans-Retinoic”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > New Regulations and their Application by Manufacturers
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kapoor 2010
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This has been a conscious strategy of these companies to counter the decrease in classical prescriptions that we find in India, especially since the 1960s,47 the decrease in the credibility of the vaidyas as physicians, as well as in standardisation of education-changes that are not in the hands of the companies but affect the sale of their products.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Marketing and Advertising
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet, the generalisations offered are unmindful of the complexity and careful consideration that accompanies the administration of bhasmas in Ayurveda.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Articles that Indicate Toxicity of Bhasmas10
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This implies that differences exist both at the level of preparation as well as the use of the medicine in an expected line of treatment.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > New Regulations and their Application by Manufacturers
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Also at this stage, in a perfectly made bhasma, the metal is expected to be in a bio-assimilable form, which undoubtedly can be translated to modern pharmacological parlance and rigorous testing, if only the example set by Dahanukar and Thatte is followed!”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Construction of Toxicity in Different Systems of Medicine
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, the title reports that an ayurvedic herbal medicine caused lead poisoning.This erroneously indicates that it is herbal under false pretences, because a herbal medicine by definition should not contain metals or minerals (again, contamination would be a different matter).”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Articles that Indicate Toxicity of Bhasmas10
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“First, these texts lay out the very processes of the preparation of bhasmas.The fact that the formulations of bhasmas vary for different metals and for different disease conditions, indicates that the medicinal potential of these metals has been known in fair detail.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Articles that Emphasise the Non-toxicity of Bhasmas
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chaudhary
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A statement the paper makes itself — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The most significant underlying norm is, however, that bhasmas are medicines that can only be administered under strict supervision of a knowledgeable physician.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Articles that Emphasise the Non-toxicity of Bhasmas
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, it is important to recognise that skewed scientific analysis only serves to damage these possibilities, and those undertaking analysis in the name of science ought to be aware of a larger responsibility they have.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Conclusions
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is perhaps also important to recognise that even if the cultural precepts that guide the use of Ayurveda and similar systems by people on the ground remain in their consciousness and actual practice, their continuation would depend on the possibility of sustainable production of medicines and of agriculture in general.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Conclusions
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, Ayurveda and other such medical knowledge systems cannot only be understood as 'traditional' , as they have been for a long time in the asian medicine 8 (2013) 153-179 literature.They are living systems of practice and research that need to be understood within the transformed parameters of production and practice.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Thus, Kapoor feels that compounds that are formed by metals taking on different valence states should be treated like independent bhasmas, which is not the case in traditional practice.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > New Regulations and their Application by Manufacturers
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kapoor 2010
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both the prescription of the diet to accompany medication, and it being followed, depend on a large number of non-medical factors, like the fast-changing food patterns of people, especially in urban areas.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Conclusions
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A comparison of the different bhasmas shows that the variation results from the different texts that are the source of the method of preparation, and the differences are rather substantial.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > New Regulations and their Application by Manufacturers
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kapoor 2010
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A statement the paper makes itself — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940, now amended several times, contains some very good provisions; for example, Good Manufacturing Practices, Good Agricultural Practices, etc.These have the potential to regulate every stage of the production of ayurvedic medicines-from the quality of the raw material to the final product.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > New Regulations and their Application by Manufacturers
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Many of the articles cited invariably talk of the difficulty of the processes of making bhasmas and doubt as to whether these are being followed, due to haste and homogeneity that mark the modern production of all commodities, to which ayurvedic products now invariably belong.”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Herbo-mineral products are a very small proportion of the ayurvedic medicines manufactured and used in India.
“although a high proportion of India's population uses Ayurveda, herbo-mineral products are a very small proportion of the medicines manufactured in the first place.Thus, these are a small proportion of ayurvedic medicines that people use.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Jambrulin is a legally-recognised proprietary ayurvedic medicine, different from a classical formulation.
“Second, the name Jambrulin indicates a legally-recognised category of ayurvedic medicine known as 'proprietary' medicine, which is different from a 'classical' formulation.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The articles indicating non-toxicity of bhasmas are part of a large body of literature generated in India over the last 60 to 70 years.
“The articles indicating the non-toxicity of bhasmas are part of a large body of literature that has been generated in the last 60 to 70 years in India.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Very little of the Indian literature on the non-toxicity of bhasmas is cited in international publications on Ayurveda.
“Yet, very little of this literature is cited in international publications on Ayurveda.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Ayurvedic medicines may be marketed in India as classical and as patent or proprietary formulations according to law.
“Ayurvedic medicines, according to the law in India, may be marketed in two forms, as 'classical' formulations and as 'patent' or 'proprietary' formulations.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Articles that Indicate Toxicity of Bhasmas10
“These articles are all actually concerned with a limited range of products available in the market as 'proprietary' medicines”
§ Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines Recent Controversies over Bhasmas > Articles that Indicate Toxicity of Bhasmas10
“Singh, however, analyses three classical formulations, Talisadi Churna, Panchsaka Churna, and Triphala Churna.”
Citations
Cites
Heavy Metal Content of Ayurvedic Herbal Medicine Products
Saper, R. B. (2004) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.292.23.2868 · Cited by 703
Lead, Mercury, and Arsenic in US- and Indian-Manufactured Ayurvedic Medicines Sold via the Internet
Saper, R. B. (2008) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.300.8.915 · Cited by 533
A Sensory Ecology of Medicinal Plant Therapy in Two Amazonian Societies
JR., G. H. S. (2004) · American Anthropologist · doi:10.1525/aa.2004.106.2.252 · Cited by 180
Heavy metal poisoning from Ayurvedic traditional medicines: an emerging problem?
Dargan, P. I., Gawarammana, I. B., Archer, J. R. H., House, I. M., Shaw, D., & Wood, D. M. (2008) · International Journal of Environment and Health · doi:10.1504/ijenvh.2008.020936 · Cited by 87
Ayurvedic herbal medicine and lead poisoning
Gunturu, K. S., Nagarajan, P., McPhedran, P., et al. (2011) · Journal of Hematology & Oncology · doi:10.1186/1756-8722-4-51 · Cited by 67
(1995) · Cited by 60
Bioaccessibility of lead and arsenic in traditional Indian medicines
Koch, I., Moriarty, M., House, K., et al. (2011) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.07.059 · Cited by 55
Krishnamachary, B., Rajendran, N., Pemiah, B., Krishnaswamy, S., Krishnan, U. M., Sethuraman, S., & Sekar, R. K. (2012) · Journal of Ethnopharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.jep.2012.04.021 · Cited by 54
(2007) · PubMed · Cited by 50
Pharmacovigilance: Boon for the safety and efficacy of ayuvedic formulations
Chaudhary, A., Singh, N., & Kumar, N. (2010) · Journal of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine · doi:10.4103/0975-9476.74427 · Cited by 28
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- Banerjee, 2009, Power, Knowledge, Medicine
- Bode, 2008, Taking Traditional Knowledge to the Market: The Modern Image of the Ayurvedic and Unani Industry 1980–2000
- Dahanukar, 1982, ‘Influence of Trikatu on Rifampicin Bioavailability’, Indian Drugs, 19, 271
- 1962, Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia of India
- Obringer, 1997, L’Aconit et L’Orpiment. Drogues et Poisons en Chine Ancienne et Médiévale
- Patwardhan, 2005, ‘Heavy Metals and Ayurveda’, Current Science, 88, 1535
- Priya, 2011, Status and Role of AYUSH and Local Health Traditions under the National Rural Health Mission: Report of a Study of the National Health Systems Resource Centre, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi
- Sharma, 2004, Rastarangini
- Singh, 2008, ‘Toxic Metal Analysis in Ayurvedic Drug Systems’, Conference Report: 23rd National Systems Conference NSC 2008, December 17–19, 664
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Supply of Medicinal Raw Materials
Dejouhanet, L. (2014) · Asian Medicine · doi:10.1163/15734218-12341293 · Cited by 12
Phyto-pharmacological review on bioavailability enhancer [Trikatu]
Joshi, S., & Gupta, R. K. (2024) · Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry · doi:10.22271/phyto.2024.v13.i3d.14971 · Cited by 4
Patil, P. S., Wagh, M. D., Mohan, M., et al. (2024) · Journal of Drug Research in Ayurvedic Sciences · doi:10.4103/jdras.jdras_120_23 · Cited by 1
Science Journalism in Postcolonial India: Mapping the Political Economy of Ayurveda in Digital News
Dowling, D. O., & Paul, S. (2026) · Journalism Practice · doi:10.1080/17512786.2026.2633258
Acharya-Büch, R., Ivaki, P., Jeitler, M., et al. (2025) · Complementary Medicine Research · doi:10.1159/000549523
Metadata
- Authors
- Banerjee, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Delhi (IN)
- Corresponding author
- Banerjee, Madhulika
- ORCID
- Banerjee, Madhulika
- Venue
- Asian Medicine
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- Published
- 2013-09-17
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 153-179
- ISSN
- 1573-420X (ISSN-L)
- 1573-4218
- OpenAlex
- W94281210
- Semantic Scholar
- 02a72c7477cafbe89739055ee00957bb345b8573
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 1.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Asian Medicine (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Traditional Chinese Medicine Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Complementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › History of Medicine Studies
- Keywords
- politics of knowledge, Ayurveda, Bhasma, herbo-mineral preparations, toxicity, mercury, lead, epistemological hierarchy, knowledge translation, traditional knowledge, regulatory policy, drug regulation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-05, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-05 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1163/15734218-12341288
- The paper
- Banerjee, M. (2013). Politics of Knowledge in the Debates on Toxicity in Ayurvedic Medicines. Asian Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1163/15734218-12341288
