.png)
.png)
"Does it actually work?"
It's the question every thoughtful patient asks about traditional medicine, and it deserves an honest answer rather than a shrug toward centuries of tradition. Ayurveda is one of the world's oldest systems of medicine, refined over thousands of years of careful observation. But observation across generations and evidence by modern standards are not quite the same thing, and we think patients are right to want both.
So we did something we believe every traditional medicine deserves. We took an Ayurvedic formulation developed within our own lineage and put it through a formal, independent clinical study, designed, conducted, and reviewed to modern research standards, by people entirely independent of us. This is the story of how that study was run, and why we believe this kind of honesty matters.
In classical Ayurveda, the cluster of metabolic disorders we now associate with high blood sugar was described centuries ago under the concept of Prameha. The tradition offered detailed observations and approaches long before modern laboratory testing existed.
Modern clinical research doesn't replace that knowledge. It tests it. A well designed study asks simple, honest questions: When we observe a group of patients carefully over time, what actually happens? Is the preparation well tolerated? Are the changes worth documenting properly?
Running a study doesn't diminish the tradition. It holds it to account, and, we believe, honours it.
The study was structured as a single centre, pilot, open label clinical study in adults with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Let's unpack what each of those terms means, because they matter:
Who took part: 50 adults, aged between 30 and 65, of both sexes, all with Type 2 diabetes within defined clinical ranges. Every participant gave written informed consent, took part voluntarily, and was free to withdraw at any time.
The two groups: The study looked at the formulation in two ways, used on its own, and used alongside participants' existing care. This let the investigators observe the preparation in more than one real world situation.
The timeline: Participants were followed over 90 days, returning to the clinic roughly every 10 days. At each visit their progress was reviewed, their measurements taken, and their use of the study preparation checked.
What was measured: The study tracked recognised clinical markers of blood sugar status over time, including HbA1c and fasting and post meal glucose, alongside a structured questionnaire based on classical Ayurvedic symptom assessment, used as a measure of quality of life. Throughout, the investigators recorded any adverse events to monitor safety.
This is the part we're proudest of, because it's where good intentions become genuine accountability.
Before a single participant was enrolled, the study protocol, the consent process, and the participant information were reviewed and approved by an Independent Ethics Committee, the Society for Medical and Health Care Research Independent Ethics Committee in Cochin. Independent ethical review exists to protect participants and to ensure a study is conducted honestly.
The study was sponsored by an independent contract research organisation, Clinfound Clinical Research Services Pvt Ltd, and conducted by an independent Principal Investigator, Dr. Sarat K Babu, at Nangelil Ayurveda Medical College. It was registered with the Clinical Trials Registry, India (CTRI), the national registry that brings transparency to clinical research.
In plain terms: this was not something we marked our own homework on. The study was designed, run, and reviewed by qualified, independent parties, under recognised good clinical practice and ethical standards.
Over the 90 days, the investigators observed how participants' blood sugar markers and Ayurvedic symptom scores changed from their starting point, and monitored how well the preparation was tolerated.
On safety, which for any medicine comes first, the results were reassuring. The report records no treatment emergent serious adverse events attributed to the formulation, and no participant dropouts across the study. A couple of minor events noted during the study were reported as unrelated to the preparation, and no significant changes were seen in participants' vital signs.
On the clinical measures, the investigators recorded changes from baseline over the study period across the markers that were tracked. As an early, single centre pilot study, its findings are best understood as preliminary observations rather than a final or definitive conclusion, and they describe what was seen in this specific group of participants rather than a general result.
We're deliberately not turning those findings into headline numbers or promises here, and that's a considered choice. Specific results for a particular medicine and a particular condition are exactly the kind of thing that should be discussed between a patient and their physician, in the full context of that person's health, rather than reduced to a slogan on a web page. If you'd like to understand the research in more depth, we'd be glad to discuss it with you in consultation.
A single pilot study is not the end of a story, and we won't pretend it proves everything. It doesn't, and an honest account says so. What it reflects is how we chose to approach this formulation: developing it thoughtfully within our lineage, and then putting it through an independent, ethically reviewed study rather than resting on tradition alone.
That's the standard we think Ayurveda deserves, and the standard our patients deserve.
This article is for educational and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, and it is not a claim that any condition can be cured, prevented, or treated. Individual results vary. Please consult a qualified physician about your own health
Study of an in-house Ayurvedic formulation, sponsored by Clinfound Clinical Research Services Pvt Ltd (a contract research organisation), conducted at Nangelil Ayurveda Medical College, reviewed and approved by the Society for Medical and Health Care Research Independent Ethics Committee, Cochin and registered with the Clinical Trials Registry, India. This article does not constitute a therapeutic claim.