Is Siddha System of medicine more scientific than Ayurveda?

Is Siddha system of Medicine more scientific than Ayurveda? This question should not be construed as an attempt to project Siddha system is superior over Ayurveda. This is an effort to unravel the mystery of Siddha system and its science from the dominant use of several minerals and toxic metals in the system than herbs for preparing Siddha products. The Ayurveda uses predominantly the herbs than metals or minerals.

The above question further gains its strength from the recent attempts of several Green protagonist and proponents of organic farming who are competing in the market to sell everything starting from ‘safety pin’ to ‘aero-plane’ under the tag ‘organically produced”.

The so-called green lovers and champions of organic farming always profess that the chemical fertilizers not only harm the ecosystem but do accumulate in the plant parts. When human and animals consumes such plant produce that are grown non-organically (using chemical fertilizers) will have harmful consequences. When the plants are grown using organic manures, naturally the quality of the plant produce increases and are indeed eco-friendly as well.

There are two separate technical issues the green lovers who promote and sell organic farming have brought out in the society viz.,

1. The chemical fertilizers do accumulate in plants and harm the ecosystem as well as the consumers of such plant produce
2. The secondary metabolite profile of plants do significantly differ when grown with organic manure than with chemical fertilizers

The issue is far more complicated than what we assume. The same species of plants grown in different geographical areas, grown under different climatic conditions, collected during different seasons do show huge variability in their secondary metabolite profile. Therefore when we use the same species of plants to prepare Siddha or Ayurveda products, the therapeutics can vary greatly.

The wide variety / diversity seen among mangoes are one such example. Maybe by knowing fully well about the above idiosyncrasy of plant secondary metabolites, the Ayurveda and Siddha literatures have clear mention of the time, season and other bio-moral recipes to be followed by the vaidya while collecting the medicinal plants.

From the above perspective if we look at Siddha system of medicine and Ayurveda, we can see both systems are totally different. The Siddha system largely uses wide variety of toxic metals and minerals than plants.

If we dwell deep to understand the question of why the ancient Siddhars have exploited many toxic metals and minerals for preparing several paramedical health care products than herbs, we may be tempted to believe that the ancient Siddhars might have had understood the variations of plant secondary metabolites and their undependability. So the ancient Siddhars would have felt that over dependency on plant-based preparations for treating various health problems may not yield the desired results. This compelling truth would have made the Siddhars to relay more upon metals and minerals than plants as metals and minerals are quite stable.

Further, I am also tempted to think that the ancient Siddhars would have understood the fact that metals and minerals cannot show such variability either in their chemical or other characteristics. The formation of isobars, isotope and the law of definite proportions etc., are assumed to be known to Siddhars and that is how they have given greater importance to metals and minerals based preparations than herbs in Siddha system of Medicine.

The metals used by Siddha system are Arsenic, led, Mercury, Copper, Silver etc., and are deadly toxic. In fact several strictures are issued by the ancient Siddhars while administering metal based preparations. Whether such recipes and methods of purification and processing of toxic metals would really reduce the toxicity of metals used in Siddha system and these preparations are really effective, only the Siddha experts can explain. From the scientific point of view such possibility is remote. Further, we also have abundant medical reports on metal toxicity from AYUSH products.

Use of plethora of metals and minerals based preparations in Siddha system technically poses the question of whether Siddha system is more scientific, authentic and superior than Ayurveda from the perspective of the stability of metals and minerals than herbs.

Was the ancient Siddhars chosen predominantly the metals and minerals because plant-based preparations were highly unreliable? Reliability of expected result is more with metals and minerals than herbal preparations purely because of the stable chemical characteristics. Does that mean, the Siddhars have understood the science better than Ayurveda experts? These are only doubts and not conclusion.

The debate is not about efficacy of Siddha or Ayurveda products. Even if some products of AYUSH are remotely effective, they cannot become drug or can ever meet even the simple definition of drug. The point is only about the science and scientific sanctity of Siddha system versus Ayurveda than the efficacy the products of both the system.

Ayurveda and Siddha do differ greatly in the Tridosha principle and the fundamentals of vata, pitta, kapha run totally opposite to each other between both the systems.

Most of the Ayurveda experts conveniently use the poor and innocent patients to defend their system. The vaidyas often would ask the patients to explain how they have benefited by the treatment and drugs. This will be the most opted method to answer if we raise any question pertaining to the science and efficacy of their system.

If look at the abundant use of toxic metals in Siddha system, it indicates nothing but the possibility of great scientific inquisitiveness of ancient Siddhars in choosing metals and minerals over herbs may be due to the unreliable secondary metabolite profile.

Why the Siddha experts who acquired Siddha graduation through institutionalized education have missed the thread left by Siddhars? Why most of the institutionally qualified Siddha vaidyas in private practice take pride in cross pathy than having trust and belief in own system? Why they still sing the same old song that the system is time tested, developed by Siddhars etc., but fail to develop the system?

The concept of organic farming and its claimed superiority certainly raise serious doubts on the consistency of secondary metabolite profile in plants especially that are used for preparing various AYUSH products. This variability can seriously affect the performance of herbal drugs if the real therapeutic constituent (s) is not identified. This is the reason why most AYUSH products may work or may not work and when and for whom they work also, only God knows. When it works on someone, they become the sole evidence for most AYUSH vaidyas to showcase as global proof.

We must establish the mechanism of action, active content (s), its dosage, pharmacokinetics etc., of AYUSH products otherwise we must classify them only as products with some health value and not as drugs. Time has come we must promote AYUSH for paramedical benefits like positive health and wellness. We must create a system to use the expertise of large number of institutionally qualified AYUSH vaidyas to provide home health management and for post-treatment therapy like how physiotherapy, speech therapy, dietetics etc., serve our society. AYUSH products must be removed from D&C act.

Dr S Ranganathan