Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine/Archive 1

Untitled comments
It's entirely appropriate to report common beliefs in an encyclopedia article, even if they have little foundation, but I think the following may actually not be true:


 * Many Chinese people trust Chinese medicine more than the western counterpart, especially in the following specialty areas:

From what I understand, one of the largest black markets in China is for Western pharmaceuticals, and Chinese herbalists make most of their money from the U.S. and other foreign markets. --LDC


 * Isn't the word "Many" a vague term? If the sentence starts with "Most", then I would agree with you, else the sentence is valid as long as we are not talking about 20 people out of 1 billion.


 * From my experience here (I'm currently living in China and have been for two years now) I'd say the statement would be true even if "many" were struck out and replaced by "most". The Chinese government, during the '50s and '60s, did a massive campaign to sow mistrust in western medicine and promote traditional Chinese medicine.  The reasons were very simple and practical: Chinese "medicine" was cheaper and it was much quicker to train up a Chinese "doctor" with TCM than it was to train up a real doctor conversant with basics like germ theory.  (I cannot help but laugh, however, to note that the very leaders who were deriding western medicine and promoting traditional medicine themselves made use of western medicine exclusively....)
 * Even now, with this promotion long dead and gone, you will find Chinese doctors supposedly trained in western medicine who don't understand germ theory (sterilisation is not common except in big cities), who can't tell the difference between treating a viral disease and a bacterial one (penicillin is routinely prescribed for the common cold), who can't comprehend the notion of anaphylaxis (no skin tests when injections of antibiotics are made) and so on. So, as a result, most of the population of China doesn't trust western medicine -- because its practitioners are so completely and fundamentally incompetent.
 * I think what can be best said about TCM is that it is (mostly) harmless. (Why only "mostly"?  Mercury is considered to be medically beneficial in TCM....)  If you're "competent" with it, nothing bad happens.  If you're "incompetent" with it, nothing bad happens.  Usually.  Western medicine, on the other hand, punishes the patient severely if the doctor is incompetent.  Since most Chinese doctors are literally incompetent, well the conclusion is left as an exercise for the student.  --Michael 00:11 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Michael's opinion is very biased, typical of western views to TCM. His points to attack the validity of TCM can also be found in Western medicine.  For example, chemotherapy in Western medicine uses known poisons to treat patients.  Does that make Western medicine voodoo also?  Almost every drug used in Western medicine has a long list of side effects, some as scary as permanent liver or kidney damage etc.  The Western medicine is as scary to Chinese people as TCM is to Westerners.  Regarding human error of the practitioners, Western medicine has its fair share too.  News about mal-practice such as amputating the wrong limbs or brain surgery on the wrong patient, microwaving the blood before transfusion etc. does not make Western medicine as perfect as most westerners think.


 * Michael's opinion is based on experience. Michael has been left to the tender mercies of Chinese "doctors" more than once.  Michael has has many TCM medicines prescribed for things -- all of which proved ineffective at reducing anything whatsoever.  Michael has had a persistent cough "treated" with TCM only to have it stay around unabated for six weeks -- yet after one self-prescribed run of penicillin (one of the cool things about living in this country is that penicillin is over-the-counter....) over ten days had it disappear.


 * Michael's opinion is further hardened when it is faced with idiocy like the scare tactics used above to show how evil western medicine is. Yes, for example, known poisons are used to treat very specific conditions.  The difference between that and TCM is that the people using the poisons are very aware of how toxic the compounds, etc. are and use them only as a desperate last resort.  On the other hand, mercury, in its various forms, is handed out like candy in TCM.  Most TCM concoctions in this country are laced with mercury.  Mercury is considered a health-enhancing substance under all circumstances.


 * Michael is also very amused at being accused of finding western medicine "perfect" a short paragraph after he said "Western medicine, on the other hand, punishes the patient severely if the doctor is incompetent". He was unaware that illiteracy was a prerequisite for believing in TCM, but is unsurprised to find this.  --MTR (&#20005;&#21152;&#21326;) 06:35, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I had a great laugh at Michael's comment: "He was unaware that illiteracy was a prerequisite for believing in TCM". Sound like this comment was based on my comment "... does not make Western medicine as perfect as most westerners think" being misinterpreted as " ... does not make Western medicine as perfect as Michael thinks".  I think this is called the pot calling the kettle black.  If this were not a literacy issue, then Michael must have such a big ego to represent most Westerners. Some people believe in Western medicine, some believe in TCM; some believe in Jesus, some believe in Allah.  Calling someone illiterate does not make one's belief superior than the other's.  While incompetent Western doctor is not a proof that Western medicine is worthless, but incompetent TCM doctor means an age old tradition is voodoo.  What a logic!


 * I have more TCM examples to share. When I was a kid, a neighbor boy broke his femur. He was sent to the hospital.  The western doctor repaired the broken bone using plaster casting.  The bone healed after a month or so.  For the next six months, the boy was limping when he walked and ran.  Initially, the parents thought it just took time for the injury to recover.  After a while, the parents sent the boy to a Chinese Die Da doctor for a second opinion.  It was found out that the leg was rotated outward when the bone was reconnected.  The boy would never walk straight again because one of his leg was turned outward.  The Chinese doctor suggested two options.  Do it all over again or let the boy live with the problem for the rest of his life.  The parents decided on the first choice.  The doctor broke the bone on the spot, twisted it back using traditional Chinese technique, i.e. entirely by touch and feel with no aid of X-ray nor western equipment.  The boy recovered properly and grew up an active sporty person.  I personally knew the victim, so it was not an urban legend.  Personal experience makes believers, not illiteracy.


 * Yet another example. In the last decade, burning charcoal became a popular method of suicide in Hong Kong.  Carbon monoxide poisoning is a clean and relaxed way to go to "sleep for good".  Sometime ago, there was a high profile case made it to the news.  A celebrity became brain dead after a failed charcoal suicide attempt.  The western doctors gave up.  His family sought help from a famous TCM doctor who treated this "vegetable" with various Chinese methods.  The patient woke up after many months of treatment.  I don't know all the details of the case, other wikipedians in Hong Kong may be able to locate the story from some old newspaper.  This was not a proof that TCM was responsible for his recovery in this case, but as least the TCM doctor didn't give up after the Western doctors did.


 * I couldn't care less what Michael's doctors couldn't do. I am pleased with what my doctor could do. Kowloonese 08:22, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * My mother was treated for hypertension and heart disease by the western doctors for the past 10 years. I'm talking about American doctors in California, not the poorly trained western doctors in China mentioned by Michael's comment.  She had been taken a cocktail of various medications.  The doctors let her try different kinds of medications as if she was a Guinea Pig.  Recently, they found out my mother has liver cerosis after over two months of tests, scans and diagnosis.  Though the doctors denied, I truely question if her liver damage was caused by one or more of the medications she took over the past ten years when the doctor did not monitor her reactions to the drugs.


 * The irony is that when I took my mom to a Chinese Herbal doctor for a second opinion. The doctor identified her liver trouble within two minutes without our telling what the western doctors has found out in two months.  The sad thing was that even the TCM cannot revert the damage over night.


 * My personal experience with western medicine was not good either. I got gout over a year ago and I went to the American doctors. The doctor prescribed me some anti-inflamation drug and pain killers.  He said he could only suppress the symptoms while I must change my diet to reduce the accumulation of the uric acid which caused the gout.  I suffered from gout for few months with no improvement.  The pain came back every once in a while despite the change in diet.  The uric acid in my body turned into painful kidney stones.  The painful passing of a kidney stone was the last straw.  I gave up on the western doctor and went to a Chinese Herbal doctor.  He prescribed me a course of "toxin purging" brew.  The treatment consisted of six daily doses of herbal tea.  I passed stool that smelled like ammonia during the six days.  I could really tell from the smell that my body was getting rid of the uric acid that the western doctor told me about.  The gout was totally cured in six days.  It has not come back for over a year now.  If I continued on the western medication, I could be another Rush Limbaugh by now.


 * It is a widespread Chinese belief that TCM cure the root of disease, Western medicine only suppress symptoms. Western medicine has its own strength too, especially in surgery that take a shortcut during medical emergencies.  Each person have different experience.  However, using a blanket statement to discredit a thousand year tradition is only a sign of ignorance.  Kowloonese 19:04, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)--

Reply to above: I seriously doubt the writer above is a mainland Chinese from the way he talks. At best he only fits the description of a "banana man" as said by the late Chinese premeir Chou-En-Lai. This is a term to describe someone with yellow skin like a banana, otherwise inside it is all white i.e. completely westernised in thought and hence ignorant what is true Chinese culture is about.

Red Links
Please do not remove red links--I am working on them. Thanks. heidimo 22:36, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Scientific basis
To say that TCM has absolutely no scientific basis is a bit far-fetched. Take a look at http://www.healthy.net/asp/templates/article.asp?PageType=article&ID=1278#The%20Physiology%20of%20Traditional%20Chinese%20Medicine, http://www.ucihealth.com/News/Releases/Acupuncture.htm. Research is still ongoing and we can say that much scientific basis has yet to be discovered, if at the same time we say these remedies work.--Jiang 08:09, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say it has no scientific basis - I said that Western science has failed to detect any material basis for its central principles (Qi etc). I was very careful how I phrased this because I knew the WP thought-police would be onto me very quickly for challenging such a sacred cow as the superiority of non-western thought in all things. Adam 08:13, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Adam, this is why I tried to temper the "Western views..." section a bit. To have such a long section go at length to use sweeping, dismissive language on behalf of the entire "West", without attributions/citations, I think is a bit much.  Let's see if we can find something in between, and not a revert war. Fuzheado 08:14, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * "Logic would suggest that since the principles of Western medicine are readily understood by anyone with a scientific education, while the basis of TCM remains undetectable, the Western theory of medicine is more likely to be correct." - or maybe logic will suggest that we have not conquered all knowledge and scientific basis has yet to be discovered? What makes you so sure that if scientific basis for TCM, western medicine will be proven incorrect (or vice versa)? They looked into blood flow patterns and how sticking a needle into one part of your body could potentially affect another. But no one is recommending that you poke around at some who's just been in a car accident. They're two different fields. --Jiang 08:30, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Jiang, I am really surprised that someone who is both scientifically trained and (correct me if I'm wrong) of Chinese descent seems to know so little about this subject. There is a perfectly good scientific explanation for the (very limited) beneficial effects of acupuncture (it's to do with gate theory). The issue is not whether some TCM techniques "work" - of course they do. The issue is with the underlying explanation of why they work: Qi and all that, which makes no biological sense and cannot be either verified or tested empirically. But this is really only a side issue. The real difference between Western medicine and all pre-modern medicine is the discovery of infection, and the resulting breakthroughs in disease control and public health, as well as later developments such as oncology. No pre-modern medicine can do anything in these areas. Adam 08:42, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Adam's text ignores the prevailing view that TCM and Western medicine can be complementary - the former for chronic diseases and the latter for more immediate emergencies. It states that just because TCM by itself failed to increase living standards over those using western medicine, TCM does not work. This position is illogical. Yout "western" doctors (white middle aged males living in Silicon Valley) are referring their patients to the acupuncturist. --Jiang 08:16, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That is most certainly not the prevailing view of the great majority of Western doctors and scientists - Jiang's corner of California may be an exception but that does not surprise me much. More generally, if my section is edited in way Fuzheado suggests, we will have a first half completely uncritical of TCM, and a second half full of the usual WP tortured "NPOV" sentences. Much better to have two parts of the article which disagree with each other but which are in overall balance (yin and yang, perhaps?) Adam 08:23, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Also Jiang misunderstands the comment about living standards. I'm sure he understands the relationship between the rise of capitalism and the scientific revolution of which western scientific medicince is part. The point I was making was about the standards by which the validity of a system of medicine should be judged. All pre-modern medicine fails by those standards, not just TCM. Adam 08:32, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * No one (at least almost no one) is suggesting that western medicine be completely shunned in favor of Chinese medicine. Therefore, the point that TCM by itself fails to raise living standards is a pointless one to make. Instead, we should view TCM in light of its modern uses - to cure chronic diseases western medicine fails to remedy.


 * I have never seen any evidence that TCM can cure any illness which Western medicine cannot. Can Jiang supply some? Adam 01:41, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * (Some groundrules for this little challenge: anecdotal reports don't count - it must be research-based evidence. Palliation of incurable illness doesn't count. Autosuggestion and the placebo effect don't count - that can be achieved with anything the patient believes in. Relief from vaguely-defined conditions like backache doesn't count. I want to see actual research evidence of an actual cure of an actual disease. Adam 01:55, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC))


 * Again, Chinese medicine, in its modern use, is not meant to substitute western medicine. I repeat as I repeat before: no one is suggesting that someone in a serious car accident see the accupuncturist. Even if it's palliation, it serves a use western medicine cannot provide.


 * Note that Jiang has dodged my challenge. Adam 03:13, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * No I haven't. Scroll directly below these lines. --Jiang 04:22, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Can you supply the western solution to these: ? It appears the promoting acupuncture is not limited to the silicon valley; the British are promoting it too: . And we can expect this trend to continue as people are exposed to the east. --Jiang 02:25, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I ask you again to justify "in other words, if the TCM explanation of illness is correct, then the Western explanation must be wrong, and this would have observable consequences". How are the two theories mutually exclusive? --Jiang 23:24, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Were you asleep during your HPS classes, Jiang? TCM is based around the theory of Qi and its manipulation through acupuncture, acupressure etc. Western medicine denies the existence of Qi and bases its therapies on its observations of infection and malignancy. If the theory of TCM is sound, then the Western theory is, at the least, incomplete. This would have the consequence of TCM being verifiably more effective at curing certain diseases (as opposed to being having some benefits through autosuggestion and/or the placebo effect). No such thing has been demonstrated. Adam 01:41, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * What HPS classes (what does HPS stand for)? I've only taken courses in the basic sciences, not medicine. That's for medical school 4 years later. My knowledge of TCM is limited to what I learn from Chinamen gossip and the American news media. What is your background?


 * History and Philosophy of Science. Maybe they don't teach it in the US. I have a PhD in history (not history of science), but my argument here is based on 30 years of general reading. I was deeply absorbed in this general debate around AIDS all through the 1980s. Let's take that as an example. Is AIDS caused by HIV infection, or by having one's Qi out of alignment? It can't be both. The answer you give will determine the treatment modality you adopt. There have been numerous claims that TCM can cure AIDS (do a Google for trichosanthin and Compound Q). None has been verified. Western medicine can't cure AIDS either, but it has made huge advances towards doing so (ask anyone who has lived with AIDS over the past decade), based on a correct understanding of its cause. Adam 03:13, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * No Chinese doctor is arguing that HIV is having one's Qi out of alignment. Tell me who is advocating this. HIV is a ignored non-issue in Chinese medicine (theoretically speaking). Web-searches for trichosanthin turn up western-syle explanations: "The reason for the interest is that laboratory studies suggest that compound Q might kill infected macrophages, and eliminate this major reservoir of HIV from the body. No other treatment has been found to do so.". I challenge you to find a Chinese theoretical explanation for this. This is like the many crack remedies that turn up not just in China. --Jiang 04:22, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Compound Q was 15 years ago, so I dare say the debates from that time aren't online, which is a pity. I can assure you that TCM practitioners (not in China in most cases) did indeed assert just that, and probably still do, although I am out of that area now. Q was vigorously promoted by TCM people until its supposed miraculous properties were disproved by western scientific methods. If the TCMers had had their way, people with AIDS would still be poisoning themselves with huge doses of Chinese vegetables, as several people I knew did. (you see now where my venom on this subject comes from.) Adam 04:39, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Your "venom" does better illuminate where you're coming from, but it calls into question your ability to respect NPOV. The uninformed practice of a few people does not allow you to make this into a sweeping East vs. West standoff. And if you think that because one disproven TCM practice condemns all TCM, I invite you to review the list of failures in modern medicine, ranging from thalidomide birth defects to toxic-shock syndrome inducing IUDs to fen-phen heart problems to the recent baycol problems. I just cannot see anything that allows these types of blanket statements. Fuzheado


 * So the physicists thought there was ether even though they couldnt detect it...Chinese medicine is also about maintaining balance (yin/yang), just as western scientists explain the need to maintain homeostasis. We can see Qi cannot be detected and explained by our current science, but we cannot say it can never be detected in the future. but even if this theory is bogus, it cannot dismiss the observed effectivess of Chinese medicine.--Jiang 02:25, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * So it is your view that there are forms of energy which can be detected by TCM practitioners (using what method? intuition?) but cannot be detected by any form of empirical observation? Run that past your physics lecturer. Adam 03:13, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * No, this is not my view. My view is that just because western scientists can find no explanation for Chinese medicinal practices that otherwise seem to work, this doesn't mean an explanation can never be found. The valid explanation does not have to be identical to the Chinese explanation. --Jiang 04:22, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * There are no "Chinese medicinal practices that seem to work" for which "western scientists can find no explanation." And if the "valid explanation" is the western one, not the TCM one, that proves my point, does it not? Adam 04:39, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * An additional question: If TCM has the same validity as "pre-modern European medicine, the medical practices of India, the Islamic world, pre-Columbian America and the Australian Aboriginal people", then why has these other types of alternative medicine fallen out of disuse, especially the first item of the list? --Jiang 23:24, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Because Europeans rapidly abandoned pre-modern European medicine (bleeding, cupping etc) when they saw the effectiveness of modern medicine, which emerged from their own culture. The other cultures I mentioned were all subjected to western colonisation or domination, and western medicine was imposed on them. China is a very large and self-confident culture and was never subject to western hegemony in the same way as India etc. So it retained its belief in its own cultural traditions much longer. But of course most Chinese who know the difference choose western medicince over TCM every time there is a serious health challenge: it's only western intellectuals who want to have this debate. Adam 01:41, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Bleeding was shown to kill the patient - it was beyond unproductive - it was counterproductive. Yet, we see the effects of Chinese medicine in that acupuncture is being promoted by western doctors simply because it works. --Jiang 02:25, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Europeans believed in traditional European medicine (TEM?) for centuries, regardless of the empirical evidence (a concept which didn't exist until the scientific revolution), for exactly the same reason that Chinese believed in TCM - because it seemed to work, through a mixture of autosuggestion, placebo and the power of authority. Acupuncture is being promoted by a few western doctors - but then so are all sorts of patently fraudulent and unscientific nonsense. I have already agreed that acupuncture has some demonstrable benefit in pain relief and some other areas - though mainly through autosuggestion. You don't need to believe in mystery energy forms to know why acupuncture works. There is a perfectly simple explanation (and thus a preferable one, see Occam's Razor. Adam 03:13, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, why aren't you objecting to RK's edits, which are much more provocative than mine? (Never mind, I know the answer.) Adam 03:21, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Please read the BBC articles I posted above. --Jiang

In any case, the issue is not whether you and I agree about TCM, but what the article should say. The article as it stood was a straightforward paean of praise for TCM. All I did was add a section setting out the alternative viewpoint. Adam 08:45, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * You are free to correct any POV in the first half the article, but I doubt you can do much since it is a discussion of theory and cannot be taken as praise, therefore, you have no reason to complain. --Jiang 23:24, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Does this mean that every article in WP should have a section labeled "Western views of..." as an editorial the contents? Because, sadly, this is largely what it seems to be in this article. I'm not on an academic standards kick, but the phrases in the disputed section are rather extreme and not credible.


 * Western science argues that the principles ... have no demonstrable material basis.
 * Western medical practitioners point out...
 * Western science argues that there is no evidence... 
 * ...never been detected by Western science.


 * West, West, West. Language this "definite" about what "Western science" or "Western medical practitioners" argued, point out or have not detected needs sourcing.


 * There are many problems the way this section has been presented, not least of which is the sourcing. But the other point is the distinction between using the term "Western medicine" versus "modern medicine." And because TCM is rooted in the East, painting this conflict as East vs. West makes it hard to sort out whether it's a cultural pride that's being debated or rather than the actual scientific and holistic merits. No doubt what we all now consider modern medicine had its roots in the scientific method, pioneered in recent times in Europe and the West.  But for about a century now, it has been practiced and furthered by modern universities, hospitals and researchers around the world, not just the West. There are a lot of issues with this section, so I hope you'll participate in the give and take, because I know there is the high risk of just reverting. Fuzheado 08:52, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

To take Fuzheado's points one at a time:
 * There is only a need for a "western views of" section in articles which are devoted to describing non-western phenomena. The fact is that there is a dichotomy between Chinese and western medicine, and this needs to be drawn out to create a balanced article.
 * Attribution: I could source all those statements to "Professor X says" rather than "Western medicine says", but an encyclopaedia article is supposed to present a synoptic view of these debates, not a fully referenced academic journal article.
 * I could have said "modern" instead of western but you would still have objected.
 * Of course "western" medicine is now practised all over the world (except in parts of California it seems). That doesn't alter the fact that it originated in the West and grew from the Western intellectual tradition. Chinese and Japanese have no problems acknowledging this - it's only western intellectuals who feel this need to deny their own cultural heritage who make problems about it. Adam 09:03, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Aha, now RK is here the real fun will start - no more Dr Nice Guy. He makes me look like a hippy. Adam 15:27, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Are you treating this matter in the way a serious academic ought Adam, or are you simply trying to enlist bulls for a fight? For one, you seem to be wanting to turn this into an argument to support your assumption that there actually is some kind of conflict between the two cultures, and it appears your position is manifest either for the purpose of expressing some preconcieved biases towards Californians and Chinese people, or for clearing up some confusion you may have about how these actually exist together in the same world. I agree that some treatment is necessary, but the tenor of it should not express one-dimensional concept of an imagined conflict, applied to the medical field. You might also go so far as to quote Samuel Huntington's notions, but I would'nt recommend that either. -&#25140;&#30505sv 03:49, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

My remark above about RK may be a little flippant, but I think my debate with Jiang and Fuzheado (see above) shows that I take this issue seriously. Of course there is a conflict between TCM (and all pre-modern medical systems) and western science-based medicine. See my comments about AIDS above. This is a real issue for many people, and clarity of thought and word is required. That is why I intervened in this article in the first place (Thoth knows I have enough arguments running elsewhere to keep me busy.) I don't think that conflict needs to be expressed in the article in an antagonistic way, and I don't believe that my edits do so. In my debates here, I give as good as I get. Adam 04:01, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 &#25140;&#30505;


 * I spotted a few questionable statements - heres the breakdown:
 * Adam Carr:"There is only a need for a "western views of" section in articles which are devoted to describing non-western phenomena."
 * By what criteria do you prescribe that TCM is "non-Western phenomena." Is China a "western" society? Let's take a look: does China have cars?, boats?, trains?, planes?, TV?, steel?, vaccines?, internet? (limited, admittedly), the Wikipedia? By what criteria is China a "non-western" country? You might want to take a look at ethnoconvergence if you want to tidy up something.
 * AC:"The fact is that there is a dichotomy between Chinese and western medicine, and this needs to be drawn out to create a balanced article.
 * What dichotomy? Where is the contradiction? Can it be reported as a claim of a dichotomy, rather than a statement of fact. I see no "dichotomy." but then again, I don't see much of a substantial "dichotomy" between a shaman of 20K years ago and a surgeon at John's Hopkins, for example.
 * AC:"Attribution: I could source all those statements to "Professor X says" rather than "Western medicine says", but an encyclopaedia article is supposed to present a synoptic view of these debates, not a fully referenced academic journal article.
 * I suggest moving these to another article, under Traditional Medicine debates (there are more than one, right?)
 * AC:I could have said "modern" instead of western but you would still have objected.
 * Of course "western" medicine is now practised all over the world (except in parts of California it seems). That doesn't alter the fact that it originated in the West and grew from the Western intellectual tradition. Chinese and Japanese have no problems acknowledging this - it's only western intellectuals who feel this need to deny their own cultural heritage who make problems about it.
 * "Western intellectual tradition?" "Deny their own cultural heritage?" Again, you seek an unnecessary division, to support your preconception that there's a need that some opposing people acknowlege a supposed "cultural heritage." What human culture is not mine, Professor? -&#25140;&#30505sv 04:18, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I hardly know where to begin with such breathtaking ethnocentrism. If you want to believe that China is a Western country, that there is no difference between Chinese and Western culture and civilisation, and no dichotomy between TCM and Western medicine, I wish you well arguing that position with any well-informed Chinese you happen to meet. Let me know what you do next time you get acute appendicitis, by the way. Adam 04:30, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * The point is Adam, you seem to want to express (in some way) the notion that Chinese medicine "does'nt work" and therefore this represents some kind of 'cultral accomplishment' on the part of all "westerners." I don't dispute that your claims need addressing, but aside from the mention:
 * "Chinese medicine refers to a system of traditional folk remedies, and like other folk remedies are considered by many medical professionals to be substandard to modern medical alternatives,"
 * ...this "dichotomy" is a general one, and should be addressed at a more general arena. Respectfully, -&#25140;&#30505sv 05:02, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC) PS: And I don't see much a difference in the way an extraction of an appendix, as a task, would differ between the two respective systems, other than sterile technique -- which is just as much a factor of industral manufacture (hospitals generate huge amounts of waste), as it is of "western tradition."

I've given the conversation time to settle for one main reason -- Adam, your repuatation precedes you. So I didn't want to escalate without thinking carefully about things first. However, your comments really do test the boundaries of constructive interaction. To wit, AC:I could have said "modern" instead of western but you would still have objected. Your arrogance, intentional or not, of supposing to know my reaction is breathtaking. Modern and Western are not the same, and my comments would have been drastically different. But to get to real matters.

If you need evidence that it doesn't have to be "us vs. them" or "East vs. West", come and visit the city I'm in now -- Hong Kong. This city is the most clear example of East and West coexisting and complementing each other. It's perhaps the mantra of this place, not just in medicine, but in all cultural, economic and social aspects. (After all, this is where the eclectic mix of X.O. brandy, abalone, Kjeldsen's butter cookies, pork floss and Rocher chocolates are given as Chinse New Year gifts.) Walk down any crowded street and it's a mix of modern pharmacies and traditional herbal Chinese remedies. People here have public "modern" healthcare, and they use it. And many intersperse it with traditional Chinese wellness techniques. You have practitioners in one field who refer patients to use the other type of medicine. It's not an either-or situation.

Another problem with this debate is that TCM is not a single entity -- many people trust in the herbology, some in acupuncture, fewer in bonesetting. Many folks who find TCM useful don't believe in the five elements mentioned in the article, but find the herbal tonics and teas do boost immune systems or help with enzyme and hormonal balances, in addition to their use of modern clinical medicine.

The original "Western views of..." section presents "Western" as panacea and TCM as voodoo-like, which is inaccurate, unreferenced, dangerously broad and simplistic. There are many variations and nuances in modern and TC medicine, and keeping that section as originally written brings down the article's credibility and usefulness. Fuzheado 05:01, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. An example to consider - the Zone diet, which I've been reading about recently, takes a hormonal approach to diet, stating that the typical "western" calorie-based approaches - of low-fat and the like, (and similarly the foolish Atkins diet, which is just senseless by comparison) are baseless. Despite the fact that the diet finds high degrees of resonance and "success," its still considered "controversial" - by nutritionists that had been proven utterly wrong in their prescriptions for the past thirty years straight. TCM herbalism, what little I know of it, has long pointed in the direction of "hormonal" balance, without any understanding at all of western terms like the "calorie." -&#25140;&#30505sv 05:10, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I went out of my way in my text to say that western medicine does not regard TCM as worthless and that some of its methods do work (though not for the reasons TCM traditional practitioners believed). I don't believe that western medicine is a panacaea, and I certainly didn't say so. If the word "substandard" is now in the text, I didn't put it there. "Voodoo-like"? Hmmm, if this article was about Haitian traditional medicine I bet you wouldn't make such a pejorative remark. Adam 05:15, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Well you did use the term "western tradition," and this is the colorization I'm particularly interested in debating. My point is that such a term must be depricated -- especially among us non-medicals, who don't really know what we're talking about anyway. It is best illustrated in my above example of the Zone diet, which was developed (and marketed, of course) by a "western tradition" M.D. I'm not sure in this case, but for sake of argument, what if it's development was influenced by TCM? Does it belong exclusively in the "western tradition" category, or the "eastern tradition" category. I humbly submit that the distinction, in this hyperconnected age is fast becoming meaningless. -&#25140;&#30505sv 05:22, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I humbly disagree with you. There is a Western intellectual tradition, and nearly all of what we now call "modern" science, including medical science, grew out of that tradition. There are also a number of non-Western intellectual traditions, of which the Chinese is one. Nothing I wrote makes any value judgements about any of those traditions, it simply describes how the Western tradition views non-Western forms of medical practice: it views them as unscientific, resting on custom and authority rather than on research - just as Western medicine did until the 17th century, when Hippocrates and Galen were the only source of medical authority. Adam 05:31, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, you're wrong. -&#25140;&#30505sv 05:32, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * It's fascinating that AC can accuse folks (who advocate a balance and coexistence of East and West) of "breathtaking ethnocentrism." At the same time, AC implies that only the West was capable of a scientific process in medicine. (And again, no sources or attribution for these views). I suppose for those thousands of years that TCM was practiced, there was no exploration into new substances, no evaluation of outcomes, no experimentation in quantities of doses, no conversation between practitioner and patient, and no observation that the patient was, well, dead or alive. Then the real coup de grace:


 * There are no "Chinese medicinal practices that seem to work" for which "western scientists can find no explanation." And if the "valid explanation" is the western one, not the TCM one, that proves my point, does it not?


 * Which, if read correctly, implies that TCM failures are TCM's failures, but TCM successes are Western medicine successes. How wonderful an arrangement. Fuzheado 06:02, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In the face of such ridiculous caricaturing of what I have actually said, I am withdrawing from this argument. There always comes such a point in WP arguments. If anyone wants to make edits to my text, they are of course free to do so, and then we can debate specific points. Until then, good night. Adam 11:08, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I simply thought Adam, that in a sense you were playing devil's advocate of a sorts &mdash;airing some gut-internal views, that, if voiced by someone not as professional and sincere in their dedication to reason, would have simply degenerated into a flame war. I think it rather important that you chose to take the side you did, as it helped develop the discussion further &mdash;setting precedent for future related arguments. Sincerely, -&#25140;&#30505sv 00:38, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well I appreciate that sentiment. Adam 05:10, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

-

Removed this since I don't know think that this is true.....


 * Since China has had access to Western medicine, many Chinese have increasingly prefered Western medicine over TCM. The wealthier and better educated China has become, the more this has been so.

Who do you think there are Western-style hospitals and medical schools all over China? Adam 05:21, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Whoa here....... The relationship between TCM and Western medicine in China is *way* different than the relationship in the West.  TCM practioners and Western doctors are generally hostile to each other, while this isn't the case in China at all.  What is typically the case is that if someone has a heart attack, he gets sent to the emergency room and they do surgery and all of the other stuff.  Once they are done, the Chinese doctor will come allow and put together some herbs to make the patient feel better and boost the patients immunity.


 * Something else that I've seen is that someone with a broken wrist will get an X-ray done at a Western hospital and then go to a TCM to get the bones set. It's much cheaper.


 * But getting back to the article. Western medicine is not displacing Chinese medicine in China at all to any degree that I can see.

User:Roadrunner

Removed this since it isn't true.....


 * Little of this knowledge was shared in public for peer review until the government of the People's Republic of China established modern research and education systems for the discipline of TCM.


 * Historically, Chinese doctors in each generation guarded their medical knowledge as family secrets, passed along to apprentices.

You can argue that TCM is not peer reviewed, but you can't plausibly argue that most of it is taught in secret. User:Roadrunner

Also, I think that Adam as a limited view of what Chinese doctors do.

This is also not clear to me


 * The worth of any system of medical knowledge can only be judged by its outcome, measured through the ability to increase life expectancy, to reduce infant and perinatal mortality, to prevent and control epidemics, and similar criteria. There is no evidence that TCM produced better outcomes, when measured against these criteria, than did pre-modern European medicine. Pre-modern China had the same high rates of death from epidemic disease, the same relatively low life expectancies and the same high rates of perinatal mortality as did other pre-modern societies of comparable living standards.

I need to look at my sources, but I do remember reading somewhere that life expectancy in China in 1750's was considerably higher than Europe. This isn't necessarily due to Chinese medicine (i.e. triple cropping of rice helped), but it does mean that this argument doesn't work.


 * Went back to my sources. According to Kenneth Pommeranz, it turns out that life expectancy in China in 1750 was about the same as in England, but both were much higher than in continental Europe.  Pommeranz thinks that this is a function of nutrition and I concur.  But the premise of the argument against TCM was that all pre-modern societies had the same health levels, and this is simply not true.


 * Looking at the role of TCM in Chinese lifespan would be an interesting research project. Something that would be interesting would be to do a case study of how TCM practitioners responded to an epidemic and compare those with how modern public health workers would.


 * One thing that is clear from developmental economics is that its remarkable how *little* medicine of any sort has an impact on life expectancy. The big factors in life expectancy are nutrition and sanitation.  The flush toilet has saved more lives than doctors ever had. User:Roadrunner

what?
"Proponents of TCM claim that they can detect and manipulate these energies, but they can only demonstrate this to fellow believers. This is analagous to people who believe in God, and claim that they can detect God. In both cases, only believers agree, while no firm proof actually exists.


 * Actually this isn't true at all for most Chinese practitioners. You sense an imbalance in yang and ying, by their effects.  i.e. fever, cold, patient feeling well, patient feeling awful.  You manipulate yang and ying by giving medicines.


 * One good western analogy is that of a calorie. You can't extract a calorie from a food, and you can't see a calorie, but you can see a calorie from its effects.  Some foods are high in calories in much the same way some medicines are high in "yang".


 * Careful not to generalize your views of Chinese medicine from the hippy-dippy aura folks you find in California. -- User:Roadrunner

-	 	+	-	Most doctors and scientists hold that people who claim to sense such energies are deceiving themselves with magical thinking"

The only people who have detected gravity are believers in it ;) Your argument makes no sense. Once people have verified something, they believe in it. If they successfully prove it to someone else, they necessarily believe in it as well. Those who don't believe in it clearly aren&#8217;t convinced. There is clearly a positive correlation between having seen proof, and belief in a certain concept. Obvious stuff here, lol.

Most Doctors? What on earth? Have you seen a survey of "most doctors"? Do you have any idea of what % of earths doctors are Chinese? Or Indian? Or Malaysian? The ethnocentrism in your POV is shocking. Even if what you meant by "most doctors" was maybe "conventional medical wisdom among the physicians association of great Britain" or some such, I'd request a citation, and a clearer wording. But the suggestion that your musings amount to the opinions of "most doctors" seems dishearteningly unacademic to me Jack 05:37, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm personally very skeptical of Chinese medicine, but most of my edits were to remove things that just don't seem to me to be true (i.e. the prevalence of Chinese medicine in China, and the amount of secrecy association with TCM).

User:Roadrunner

Western medicine
The article seems fail to mention the current situation of TCM developments. For one thing, in China and in Canada, a person has to have some western medical trainings before getting the TCM license. Also, modern TCM research is directed towards integration with mainstream western medical science. wshun 05:46, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In other words it is "western medicine with Chinese characteristics" which I think proves my point. Anyway, there are some battles at Wikipedia that can't be won, and arguing against people who think that everything non-western and traditional is automatically superior to everything western and scientific is one of them. I meant to remove this article from my watchlist a while ago and now I am doing so. I wish you all luck when you get acute appendicitis. Adam 05:50, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm just trying to accurately state that what most Chinese believe about Chinese medicine. My main point is that most Chinese simply do not see Western and Chinese medicine in either/or situations. There is no question that someone with acute appendicitis would be rushed to the emergency room for surgery.  The point of Chinese medicine is to have the body in balance so that the patient doesn't come down with appendicitis in the first place.

User:Roadrunner


 * I see you equate western with scientific, and eastern with primative? This sounds very arrogant and unscientific to me. Where do you think the ingrediants in modern drugs come from? This cultural superiority attitude is not encyclopedic, your wishes for illness are unfriendly. Jack 06:02, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is that Westerners think of Chinese medicine as hippie herbal mumbo-jumbo and don't see how advanced Chinese medicine is practiced in China.


 * Here is a link to the American Journal of Chinese Medicine

http://www.worldscinet.com/ajcm/ajcm.shtml

Among the articles are....

Jing-Tian Xie, Han H. Aung, Ji An Wu, A. S. Attele and Chun-Su Yuan Hiroshi Nagasawa, Katsuto Watanabe and Hideo Inatomi Duo Chen, Chun Fu Wu, Li Huang and Zhuo Ning Tsutomu Nakada, Kenji Watanabe, Guang-bi Jin, Kazuo Toriizuka and Toshihiko Hanawa Chun-Ching Lin, Lean-Teik Ng, Jenq-Jer Yang and Yu-Fang Hsu Yu-Jen Ko, Wen-Tsuan Hsieh, Yueh-Wern Wu and Wen-Chuan Lin Y. Kurono, M. Egawa, T. Yano and K. Shimoo J. H. Lin, L. S. Wu, Y. L. Wu, C. S. Lin and N. Y. J. Yang Young Youn Kim, Jung Mi Choi, Soo Yong Kim, Sang Kyu Park, Seung Heun Lee and Kun Ho Lee Jongbae Park, Hi-Joon Park, Hye-Jung Lee and Edzard Ernst
 * 1) Effects of American Ginseng Berry Extract on Blood Glucose Levels in ob/ob Mice
 * 1) Effects of Bitter Melon (Momordica charantia L.) or Ginger Rhizome (Zingiber offifinale Rosc) on Spontaneous Mammary Tumorigenesis in SHN Mice
 * 1) Effect of the Aqueous Extract of Xiao-Ban-Xia-Tang on Gastric Emptying in Mice
 * 1) Effect of Ninjin-Youei-To on Th1/Th2 Type Cytokine Production in Different Mouse Strains
 * 1) Anti-Inflammatory and Hepatoprotective Activity of Peh-Hue-Juwa-Chi-Cao in Male Rats
 * 1) Ameliorative Effect of Silene aprica on Liver Injuries Induced by Carbon Tetrachloride and Acetaminophen
 * 1) The Effect of Acupuncture on the Coronary Arteries as Evaluated by Coronary Angiography: A Preliminary Report
 * 1) Aquapuncture Therapy of Repeat Breeding in Dairy Cattle
 * 1) Changes in EEG of Children During Brain Respiration-Training
 * 1) What's in a Name? A Systematic Review of the Nomenclature of Chinese Medical Formulae

questionable statement
This is also a very questionable statement....


 * The validity of the principles on which TCM is believed by its practitioners to work has not been demonstrated by Western science. The form of energy known as Qi, for example, which is central to the theory of TCM, has never been detected by Western science.

For example, the Chinese theory of diseases of the lung were that they were caused by "evil qi" which was inhaled by the patient. That doesn't sound like it hasn't been demonstrated, and "evil qi" in this case can clearly been seen by a microscope.

Another situation would be a broken bone, a Chinese medicial practioner would feel the broken bone, say "your qi is out of balance" and through a series of manipulations bring your qi back into balance by setting the bone.

Changed RK's edits, because they aren't true. Yes, if you go to Chinatown, the TCM people their might whisper mumble-jumbo about qi being a special outside force. If you go to China and talk to TCM practioners there, most won't.

The problem here is that TCM occupies a *completely* different niche in China than it does in the West.

User:Roadrunner

I removed this:

In addition, Western practioners in TCM in contrast to those in China, are almost never licensed and are not required to undergo a rigourous academic program. This allows practioners in the West to make extravagant claims that they would never do in China.

What is this saying? To practice TCM in the West requires 3 or 4 years of intensive schooling and passing a board exam in order to get licensed. Now, if you are an MD it is true you do not need training or licensing in TCM in order to perform TCM procedures, but I don't think that is what this phrase is saying. Why do people keep posting outrageous lies to discredit TCM on the Wikipedia? If TCM is really based on a bunch of woo-woo crap, then you shouldn't have to lie about it to make your point. heidimo 17:54, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)