[statictype]

I like how you start by pointing out logical fallacies in someone's argument and then go on to say things like "I'm sure they would have definitely given it a shot if it's as great as you claimed".

Like I said elsewhere here, I know several medical doctors (well qualified ones as well) who recommend ayurvedic treatments in certain situations (not the commercialized medicines you get in shops, but more basic 'take these things and grind them and eat it before lunch' medicines and they work reasonably well.

I think I'll take my anecdotal evidence over your link to a Wikipedia article stating inconclusive evidence.

[amackera]

You can believe whatever you would like to believe, but the fact of the matter is that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that ayurvedic treatments are effective whatsoever.

[hari1978]

It's scientifically proved on various occasions.

For instance an year back for patient with chronic trigeminal neurological pain, we have given cyberknife treatment. Most advanced radiation thearphy for this kind of pains. Initially everything was ok and the pain bounced back in 3 months. We kept the patient continuously in pain killer for so many months, before they found a very old Ayurveda practitioner somewhere deep inside southern part of India. He assured them they can take the ayurvedic medicines along with our allopathic medicines and can discontinue all the allopathic and pain killers gradually.

We have accepted to that as honestly, we left with no other option as this is an very rare case and we recorded the patient status on day to day basis. After 2 months of consumption, to our surprise, the patient has shown gradual improvements and discontinued the pain killers in the 3rd month. After an year, she discontinued ayurvedic too and living a normal life.

We still have the entire medical history of the patient, and using ayurvedic as a lost resort for trigeminal neurologia issues. But I agree, this is a rare case, and it has to be thoroughly experimented for general practice.

[lotsofpulp]

"Various occasions" do not prove anything. Sample sizes need to be much larger, and even then, the mechanics of the treatment must be uncovered.

Also, there is no reason to use "scientific" as a qualifier for proof. There is either sufficient evidence to constitute proof, or not, but there is no distinction between "scientific" proof and other proof.