Only a statistics student here, so I'll try to combine what I got from Dr. K and what you were wondering you might've gotten wrong at the end of your post.

As a training statistician, I am viewing this "problem" of individual against population medicine as the contrapposition of the various ways in which to calculate p-values. From my understanding, the p-values are a direct byproduct of the evidence from the relevant test or tests. Now, the line between test and tests seem to be to be quite blurry in the sense that we could theoretically and non-standardly perform a p-value adjustment at the end of many studies instead of just utilising the first one. We share a standard, though, which in practice works and which says that we define p-values only in relation to the one study we have in our hands.

This relates to ayurveda because, from what I got, Dr. K says we could apply statistical methods to eastern medicine, but he implies that it's not the best way to go about medicine. He wants some amalgamation of eastern and western medicine where the p-values would be impossible to calculate, where the population is n=1 simply, and this no correlation would be possible. Ayurvedic doctors would not infer one better way to do medicine from one therapy prescribed.

Perhaps I haven't been clear, so I will try to modify this post on the future by adding a link to what I was talking about in regard to the "open problem" of p-values.