Phcog.Net logo
Submit

BROWSE ALL JOURNALS

    SEE ALL 6 JOURNALS
    Pharmacognosy ReviewsNOW IN
    Article

    Misleading “non‑rasayanas”

    Subrahmanya Kumar Kukkupuni1, Venugopalan Somavilasome Narayanan2

    1. 1Centre for Pharmacognosy, Pharmaceutics and Pharmacology.
    2. 2ISM Informatics and Theoretical Foundations, Foundation for Revitalisation of Local Health Traditions, Bangalore, Karnataka, INDIA.

    Volume 9, Issue 17 · pp. 84 · PUBLISHED · DOI:

    View on Pharmacogn. Rev. original site ↗

    ABSTRACT

    The idea of “non‑rasayanas” put forward by Gaurav Mahesh Doshi and co‑authors[1] does not exist in Ayurveda at the first instance. Though, in science, it is always welcome to generate new ideas, concepts, and terminologies, one must take sufficient care while conceptualizing them. Authors must define the scope of new concept/word with adequate clarity, supported by evidence. The concept/word “non‑rasayana” proposed by them is very immature and not substantiated with evidences in the article. The theoretical background to consider an herb as non‑rasayana has not been mentioned anywhere in the article. However, it appears that the authors are targeting exploration of herbs not described as rasayana in Ayurveda, but have a potential to bring about immunomodulation as non‑rasayana.

    KEYWORDS

      Open in new tab

      REFERENCES

      As published

      Showing references and in-text citations exactly as published.

        Cite this article

        SELECT FORMAT

        Kukkupuni, S. K., & Narayanan, V. S. (). Misleading “non‑rasayanas”. Pharmacognosy Reviews, 9(17), 84.