semi protected edit request on november the article currently states there is no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of ayurvedic medicine for the treatment of any disease there are a few issues with this statement that make it unsuitable an absolute negative is of course impossible to prove and quite a high hurdle to even support reasonably well there are countless examples including some mentioned in both the cited article and this wikipedia article of ways that ayurvedic treatments have been effective at treating an assortment of diseases the cited article includes examples many statements about the efficacy of ayurveda concentrate on major disorders but eczema as one minor example is a disease which is readily treated by ayurveda so it may be appropriate to state that there is a lack of evidence showing its efficacy for treating certain diseases there is no way to support the claim that there is no scientific evidence as to its effectiveness in treating any disease if there were strong evidence supporting the likelihood that no scientific evidence existed then it may be a suitable statement but such an strong statement requires strong support the only supporting evidence is one article which is not an academically rigorous source and which itself offers examples of scientific evidence supporting that certain ayurvedic medicine is effective at treating certain disorders the statement that there is no scientific evidence is a claim and not a supported fact for this claim to stand it should be better supported or it might better be reworded i propose that the above claim be replaced by though some studies suggest the efficacy of some ayurvedic treatment for certain conditions the science is inclusive as to the efficacy of ayurveda as a complete system of treatment this statement is supportable and non controversial i may come up with a list of disorders with supporting evidence as to ayurvedic efficacy to broaden the claim that ayurvedic treatments have been shown to be effective at treating certain conditions however in the interim i think there is sufficient cause to remove the claim that there is absolutely none unless such a statement could be at least strongly supported