> But Americans do [use turmeric] having suddenly and belatedly awakened to turmeric’s health benefits, some 3,000 years after they were first set down in the Atharva Veda, one of Hinduism’s foundational sacred texts.
And there goes my interest in reading the rest of the article. Why continue to read what is supposedly a history piece if it opens with pseudoscience? How am I supposed to trust that it's not pseudohistory as well?
That makes no sense. I understand not wanting to take the article at face value, but the link provided doesn't exactly provide any details of their study either.
> How am I supposed to trust that it's not pseudohistory as well?
Because this part of the article is actually verifiable history. The Atharva Veda exists and available to grok.
The science part is up for debate. You can still read an article for its other merits
I think that statement is meant to set the historical context rather than promote pseudoscience...
Later in the article:
>even as the health benefits of curcumin remain unproven beyond a few preliminary clinical trials that suggest its potential as an anti-inflammatory and an antioxidant
I really don't get what you are complaining about here; you appear to take issue with a reference to an ancient Indian text - a verifiable fact that the text exists.
Beyond that, there is a wealth of good evidence about curcumin, the main curcuminoid in turmeric - it has been shown that curcumin has antiinflammatory effects and can reduce blood glucose levels.
I think the article is a great example of what happens when American attitudes get applied to Eastern traditions. Turmeric with black pepper in milk has long been a traditional "comfort drink" in India. Does it work? I think it does, but not in the sense that there is a specific chemical that is causing a specific response that can cure something like aortic inflammation. The concept of a "health benefit" in Indian families is "drink this and rest it will make you feel good and get healthy soon." The American approach, described in the article, is to find that Kerala turmeric has 6% curcumin compared to Tamil Nadu's 3%, and wow Nicaragua is at 7.9% so let's get a bunch of that and have it every day and it will control our aortic inflammation! and that's just too much to ask of turmeric.
Just because a homeopathy is a charlatan field doesn’t mean all of it is pseudoscience. Ayurveda has some scientifically validated remedies. If you remember, yoga used to be considered a sham until we started discovering a lot of what was claimed turned out to be true.
And there goes my interest in reading the rest of the article. Why continue to read what is supposedly a history piece if it opens with pseudoscience? How am I supposed to trust that it's not pseudohistory as well?
cf. https://www.cmaj.ca/content/190/43/E1270