Home > Interviews

A marriage of tradition and technology

India is the only country that has different systems of medicine like ayurveda, unani, homeopathy, naturopathy and yet allopathy is the mainstream of healthcare care delivery in the country. The reason for this is simply that ayurveda lacks standardisation and a scientific approach. Ayurveda has been a system which is unique in its mode of instruction, because it is based on the clinical experiences of the sages of the yore. Given this, it is difficult to include ayurveda into the mainstream. But that is precisely what Padamshri Vaidya Balendu Prakash, director of Dehradun-based VCP Cancer Research Foundation aims to do. He is a part of the cancer trials being conducted in four cities — Mumbai, Pune, Hyderabad and Kolkata. The trial process is to begin on leukemia patients at the Tata Memorial Hospital, The Nizam Institute of Medicine, (Hyderabad) The BR Singh Railway hospital (Kolkata) and with Dr C B Koppikar, in his personal capacity in Pune in about two months’ time. Namita Shibad in a conversation with Vaidya Balendu Prakash.

How can one include ayurveda into mainstream when the demands of physicians are stringent and allopathic treatments standardized?
Agreed that ayurveda has no standardisation. We all know that Chywanprash is good for health, and the bottles prescribe one teaspoon twice a day. But how much do you give for an adult and how much to a child? This is something that has been handed down from one generation to the other and so everyone has a different concept.

In two months time the clinical study on the leukemia patients will begin. How do you intend to standardise your treatment?
Let’s first discuss the western concept. How does one reach a conclusion? We try to discover a new therapeutic agent from a known traditional prescription by spending crores of rupees just to ensure international acceptability. This takes around 12 years, funding from outside agencies, several other inputs, legal, ethical, patent marketing and so on.

Instead of all this we need to find a solution that suits the Indian scenario. Unlike the western model, where you begin with a theory, then reach a hypothesis, observation and then medicine, positivism begins with an observation, and based on the records goes on to a hypothesis which can then be translated into theory that suits the western markets.

How will this work with the cancer trials being conducted in different cities?
A clinician will first observe the leukemia patients. Then the observation will be translated into a statement and measurements that can be understood and replicated by other investigations. These statements can be assessed by simple investigations like bone marrow aspiration, peripheral blood smear for the leukemia patients. These statements and measurements representing the observations should be the hypothesis. This then can be expanded to a more general explanatory system called theory, that will explain the relation between different classes of observations and hypothesis.

Has this approach been tried out elsewhere?
Yes. In a pilot study on 600 non-pregnant women and on 34 patients of acute leukemia. The anemic women (between 11 to 45 years) from Dehradun district generated the baseline data on the efficacy of ayurvedic non-iron preparation. This group was divided into three where one was given ayurvedic iron preparation, (Ayas) the other, a non-ayurvedic preparation (SS) and the third a combination of both. The three month study showed that the ones with SS and Ayas recorded a maximum gain of 1.8g per cent. While Ayas had an increase of 1.6 and SS 1.5. Similarly, a pilot study on the effect of metal based ayurvedic formulations in the treatment of patients suffering from Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia (APML) was sanctioned by Department of ISM&H, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India in 1997. The study has established 100 per cent efficacy of ayurvedic formulations for APML.

“Expertspeak”

Dr Purvish Parekh, associate professor, TMH: Ayurveda is a science, it’s just that it has not been subjected to scientific evaluation.

Dr Raghavendra Rao, professor of oncology, Nizam Institute: Ayurveda treats cancer with drugs “in their native form. Unlike allopathy where the drug is purified to a 100 percent. This purification comes with the side effects unlike the drugs in their native form. Ayurveda believes that nature has its own antidote and so the native form does not give rise to side effects.

Dr G S Bhattacharya, medical oncologist, BR Singh Railway Hospital: Most of the time the cancer patients in our country cannot afford the treatment. Ayurveda is a cheaper way of treating cancer, if it really works.