Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine/Archive 11

Second sentence

I recently tried to change the 2nd sentence of the article to one that is already in the article in the critique. If it's the same piece of information, and already in the article, why is this a problem?

Why is this not neutral?

The introduction reads: "It has been described." By whom? Also if we're not going to attribute the quote to anyone, it seems to appear out of the ether. "The gods of Reason have decreed TCM," when it's in fact a single, highly opinionated editorial.

I don't understand why the aforementioned editorial should be the second sentence, but assuming the harm to the reader is so great it needs to be there, why not attribute it to Nature (as it is in the critique, where like many criticisms on the TCM page, it is repeated again). Or if we're going to attribute this quote to a mysterious "It," why not find additional sources, and certainly ones more authoritative than an editorial.

65.128.136.19 (talk) 13:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The lead summaries the article. "Summarize" means concentrate on the essentials. The information who exactly said that is not essential. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Right, but they are the same exact sentence, so it's not a summary. In the lead the sentence reads: "It has been described as "fraught with pseudoscience", and the majority of its treatments as having no logical mechanism of action.[1]"

In the next section, it reads: "A Nature editorial described TCM as "fraught with pseudoscience", and said that the most obvious reason why it has not delivered many cures is that the majority of its treatments have no logical mechanism of action.[1] "

Exact same sentence except the first is deliberately vague to enhance the "badness" of TCM. I tried to change it to "A Nature editorial reads..." and was called biased.

For what it's worth, the editorial has no citations, no evidence. It's simply opining. This isn't really a reference that makes a case for TCM being pseudo-science. I think if the 2nd line of the lead is going to declare TCM a pseudo-science there should be something better to reference than an editorial. I mean, if we're being well...scientific here.65.128.136.19 (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not the exact same sentence because the irrelevant details are missing in the intro. Yes, it would be better style if the wording were a bit different, but then SCAM proponents would complain that it is unsourced. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Distinguishing TCM from "Western" Medicine

There is a disagreement on how to distinguish TCM from modern, western medicine. Both sides have their points. Since the main feature distinguishing the two is the use of double-blind, random-controlled studies to prove safety and efficacy in western medicine, I propose the widely-used term "evidence-based medicine" or "modern, evidence-based medicine" for the latter. I will wait for a week before making this change to see if there is a better suggestion. JimGibson1 (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

What is western medicine? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 19:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

It refers to typical, scientifically-developed Western medicine. Lots of TCM ideas are mostly pseudoscientific (the yin/yang and all that crazy stuff), but some (few) are scientifically proven and work well, and are mixed with Western medicine in China (I know berberine/huang lian su is one). Félix An (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

"The safety of using berberine for any condition is not adequately defined by high-quality clinical research. Its potential for causing adverse effects is high, including untoward interactions with prescription drugs, reducing the intended effect of established therapies. It is particularly unsafe for use in children." - That is a quote from our article on berberine. Clearly not to be used medically. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 07:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I use it all the time when I have diarrhea. My doctor recommended it too. Apparently it's very popular in China, and last year when I went to China and had diarrhea, all the pharmacists recommended it. It worked well for me. I guess it might not work as well as other Western medicines, but oh well... Félix An (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

May I suggest a very large cork and a change of doctors? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Cork???? I don't get the cork part. Félix An (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It'll help in the interim till you get a new doc. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Eww, nevermind the cork, this WP:RS shows that it seems to work: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3504405/ Félix An (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

For medical claims we have a higher standard of sourcing than WP:RS, it is called WP:MEDRS, and I'm afraid a case study is not really acceptable as a source for us, and nobody should conclude from a case study alone that something works. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 20:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

POV?

I don't think that this article is written from a WP:NPOV, because it does not mention that some TCM treatments are scientifically proven. Many of the headings are followed with "and pseudoscience", making the reader that TCM is 100% pseudoscientific, which it is not (it is true that many aspects are pseudoscientific, but many are also clinically proven). Félix An (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

We already have an article for that covers all of TCM that has been clinically proven. It is called "Medicine".

Medical treatments originating in China that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials are called "Medicine" while medical treatments originating in China that are based upon preying on the gullible are called "Traditional Chinese Medicine". --Guy Macon (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

actually, they are covered--see my comment below. It seems very appropriate to include those very few specific instances. For one thing, they point out very clearly by contrast the lack of demonstrated usefulness of the great majority of the treatments. I'd even say it's the best way of doing so.

Regardless of the absurdities of many Eastern (and Western) medical theories, some of what they used empirically has proven of use in scientific medicine; this history is an important subject to include, and we can get considerably more specific than "medicine". I think it needs a separate article--(which I am personally not about to write). DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

pseudoscience

I think we are over egging the cake, we do not need to keep on. Also I am not sure it should be mentioned in the first line of the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Possibly the second line of the lede is the place. It's appropriate that people realize this quickly if they didn't know. But once they realize it, there's no point in saying it over and over. The problem is with three sections: Critique, YTCM Model of the body, and Herbal medicine subsection on Efficacy. And if we are talking about scientific medicine,, we need to distinguish more clearly between studies showing "no evidence of effectiveness" and studies (if any) showing "evidence of ineffectiveness", which is a statistically much more difficult concept to prove . Cochrane studies are usually quite rigorous in how they use these terms, and I am not aware of any that were able to conclude that there was MEDRS quality evidence that it was ineffective. If there are, they should certainly be included. The summarization of the efficacy section could be:

There have been no studies proving that TCM in general, is either more or less effective than SM, or that most individual TCM therapies are more or less effective than SM alternatives -- except for some few TCM drugs that have proven more effective than SM alternatives available at the time. (ephedra , artemisen, pi-shuang (arsenic trioxide ) -- and we can't put AsO3 in the herb section , which is where it is now.

• The word pseudoscience is no longer present in the lead at all, "pseudoscientific" sounds somehow less correct, and I think the word "pseudoscience" should be present in he very first sentence, for the avoidance of any doubt. There's no reason to repeat "pseudoscientific" where one mention of "pseudoscience" in the first sentence and another use of "pseudoscientific" to describe its (latter-day) methods would be plenty. GPinkerton (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

agreed, though there may be one or two other places where it will clarify. DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Blaming TCm for Covid 19 is false

Why is it allowed to be assuming that TCM is responsible for Covid 19 when there’s no evidence to support that and many think snakes are responsible for Covid transmission anyways? Kizemet (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I bet you didn't read the article. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 10:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

See 2019_nCoV/SARS‐CoV‐2: rapid classification of betacoronaviruses and identification of Traditional Chinese Medicine as potential origin of zoonotic coronaviruses[1] --Guy Macon (talk) 12:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the Chinese version of this article is written more neutrally.

Not anything of encyclopedic value and not a hint of MEDRS in this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The English version seems to have an extremely negative view of TCM. See the Chinese version, which has a more neutrally-written controversy section: https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E5%8C%BB%E5%AD%A6 Félix An (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC) Félix An, different Wikipedia language projects are run separately, according to policies determined by the community at each project. If you have specific concerns about this article, and how it relates to policy here, you are free to mention them, but making comparisons to an article at a different project is not going to lead anywhere productive. Best GirthSummit (blether) 14:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC) I haven't read the Chinese version but do think the English version needs a re-write to be more balanced as it seems written in a really sweeping xenophobic stereotyped way. Article isn't very helpful. For readers learning about TCM. It's important for them to know what therapies are safe and have benefits and which ones are dangerous or not backed by any evidence..I am familiar with the small basics of traditional Chinese medicine and quite a few natural herbs and therapies used in Chinese traditional medicine for many centuries, are not exactly useless. Even modern western papers highlights the evidence backed benefits of using ginseng, etc. It seems like editors equate traditional Chinese medicine completely and narrowly with the more extreme and exotic versions like rhino horn, etc however it's not just exotic animals. It's more than just that. Just as Yoga and Pilates have benefits. So does Tai Chi and ginseng. Some high quality research may be missing. But it doesn't make Tai Chi or ginseng a pseudo science. Just that not enough high quality studies have been conducted but to smear the entire vast practise as useless or pseudoscience, is not right. However some studies have been conducted and confirm benefits. A dated but well-controlled clinical studyTrusted Source from 2002 concluded that treatment with this traditional Asian herb was superior to a placebo for the relief of COPD symptoms. People taking ginseng experienced significant improvements in breathing and the ability to perform exercise, compared to similar subjects who received an inactive treatment. https://www.healthline.com/health/copd/herbs-supplements Clearly some practises are not harmful and do have studies supporting it. But the current article fixates top heavily on the more absurd practises like animal penises, etc and I agree those things are likely bs. Which currently is well overrepresented in the current article to the point that it seems to be overwhelmingly about that and nothing much else. But natural herbs and therapies like Tai Chi, are not like that and it's not right to oversimplify it as representing the entire subject. The article isn't helpful and needs a re-write. As people and studies do find benefits in some of the natural therapies that are backed by modern studies. And contradict the current intro. Ie. https://www.healthline.com/health/tai-chi-benefits#better-sleep Casualfoodie (talk) 08:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC) The problem with a lot of Chinese TCM research is that it is low quality and tends to never publish null results. 80% of Chinese clinical trial data is fraudulent [2]. Per WP:MEDRS we have a critical duty to present medical information accurately. Healthline is not a MEDRS that is prone to sensationalism. Just because TCM is widely entrenched in mainland China and promoted by the Chinese government doesn't mean we should treat it with reverence. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC) That ginseng or Tai Chi might have some nominal positive effect in some trials does NOTHING to validate TCM. An identical argument would be that bloodletting is helpful in some people because it balances the humors and not because it reduces the iron load in people with hemochromatosis. Qi and the rest of TCM belong to the same category of nonsense medieval mechanisms proposed to explain biological phenomena as Ayurveda and humoral theory, all of which have zero place in modern medicine. Nationalistic movements have propagandized ancient indigenous healing as a method of uniting their people against perceived outside influence and, even more disgustingly, as a cheap way to "provide healthcare" to underserved populations without paying the salaries of people actually qualified in medicine. JoelleJay (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC) Why write "promoted by the Chinese government"? This topic should not even need to be political and corrupted by sinophobic rationale. The gov never created this practice but the Chinese people for many centuries were the ones who created it. Can you find any evidence that Tai Chi is unhealthy and has no benefits? And also Healthline didn't create those studies. They merely cited them like other evidence based websites and gives sources to the direct studies. https://health.clevelandclinic.org/the-health-benefits-of-tai-chi/ Do you think "non-Chinese studies" that show the benefits of Tai Chi, should be ignored? To call Tai Chi as pseudo science is wrong and misleading as you got no evidence to say that it is harmful or has no benefits. The article makes sweeping claims that the entire discipline yields no benefits when that is unlikely to be accurate. Casualfoodie (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC) What you have to remember is that we have strong sourcing rules for Medical subjects, and TCM is unfortunately a medical topic. WP:MEDRS describes the types of sources we can use for, well, sourcing the article, and all medically related articles on wikipedia. Reviews and textbooks are what we really need, but read MEDRS and see what you make of it. Tai chi isn't really a medical intervention but the article is worth reading to see how an wikipedia handles such things. I'df be happy to help you understand, either here, at your Talk page, or mine, but only after you've had a good look at WP:MEDRS. Thanks. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 11:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC) The much purported benefits of Tai Chi suffer from issues of never being properly controlled or subject to study at the point of incredulity. I recall once having the pleasure of interviewing a biomedical researcher who was also a Tai Chi instructor who touted the health benefits of Tai Chi by citing various studies about its positive health outcomes. Had she or any researchers, I asked, considered whether these health benefits were more significant than those gained by other forms of calisthenics, and, if so, was there a mechanism by which she could identify the difference? Did "Chi", as she understood it, exist and play a role? The answer, unsurprisingly to my questions, was that such studies to try to address these simple questions simply did not exist. When I asked whether she would put together a research plan for such, she explained that funding agencies either did not want to subject spiritual beliefs to a possibility for falsification (see motivated reasoning or moving the goalposts which seem to be the biggest problems) or they thought the matter unlikely to result in conclusive results. And that's basically where we are with all exercise-related meditation research whether it be Tai Chi, yoga, etc.... jps (talk) 12:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC) Well for those unfamiliar with TCM. Accupuncture is a legitimate part of TCM. Have you editors even tried it or read the studies that show that more research is needed before making a solid conclusion. Here is a high quality peer reviewed of reviews report about acupuncture.. generally that more research is needed but overall it seems promising. This is the first review of reviews that explores acupuncture’s effectiveness in treating components of the TSR. Based on the results of our review, acupuncture has demonstrated benefit for the treatment of headaches; however, safety needs to be more fully documented in order to make any strong recommendations in support of its use in treating headaches. Though more research is needed to determine whether acupuncture is useful in treating anxiety, sleep disturbances, depression and chronic pain, it does seem to be a promising treatment option. Based on our results, acupuncture does not seem to be effective for treating substance abuse, and there needs to be more high quality data before we can determine whether acupuncture is an appropriate intervention for fatigue or cognitive difficulties. https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2046-4053-1-46 Researchers have not completely ruled out its effectiveness unlike the nature opinion piece that is smack top in current intro..if research is still needed, it would be closeminded and premature to not make that part clear for the public. If however lots of research concluded that it's ineffective. Then the current intro would be fitting except we are not there yet and so you should be careful to write off those hard to understand non western disciplines as useless..show me evidence and studies conclusively stating that they're ineffective? You can't yet seem more than okay to make that conclusion despite lack of peer reviewed evidence to support your statement either. Casualfoodie (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC) for those unfamiliar with TCM Astrologers und theologians use the same trick: if you disagree with them, no matter how good your reasoning is, you are defined away by a claim that you do not know enough. It is nice how similar the bad reasoning of pseudoscientists is. Less work that way. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC) I said that because one person earlier told me that we weren't talking about accupuncture.... so I told him that accupuncture is part of TCM. AND so far research shows that stuff like accupuncture has shown promising results and actual scientists state that we need more data to understand it better. I am actually not saying that accupuncture works or doesn't work. But instead o. Saying we should note that more research is needed as stated by actual scientists. Not astrologers. This is the first review of reviews that explores acupuncture’s effectiveness in treating components of the TSR. Based on the results of our review, acupuncture has demonstrated benefit for the treatment of headaches; however, safety needs to be more fully documented in order to make any strong recommendations in support of its use in treating headaches. Though more research is needed to determine whether acupuncture is useful in treating anxiety, sleep disturbances, depression and chronic pain, it does seem to be a promising treatment option. https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2046-4053-1-46 Casualfoodie (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC) Sham acupuncture works. Any coherent explanation that acupuncture should be taken seriously needs to deal with this fact. On the other hand, I still haven't seen any TCM advocate explain how you might go about measuring qi. I don't think people active here are "unfamiliar" with TCM, incidentally. jps (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC) Actually a Harvard source would disagree with you. Indeed, from the 1970s to around 2005, the skeptic’s point of view was understandable, because the scientific evidence to show that acupuncture worked, and why, was weak, and clinical trials were small and of poor quality. But things have changed since then. A lot. Individual large-scale clinical studies have consistently demonstrated that acupuncture provided better pain relief compared with usual care. However, most studies also showed little difference between real and sham (fake) acupuncture. In order to address this concern, a 2012 meta-analysis combined data from roughly 18,000 individual patients in 23 high-quality randomized controlled trials of acupuncture for common pain conditions. This analysis conclusively demonstrated that acupuncture is superior to sham for low back pain, headache, and osteoarthritis, and improvements seen were similar to that of other widely used non-opiate pain relievers. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/acupuncture-for-headache-2018012513146 Casualfoodie (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC) You can always find a source which disagrees. But that is a rookie mistake named cherry-picking. What jps said is based on the best WP:MEDRS sources, not just some blog by Helene Langevin, whose work has already been included in those WP:MEDRS sources. The people you are arguing with actually know more about the studies than you, and they also know much more about methodology than you. one person earlier told me that we weren't talking about accupuncture But obviously not on this page. So, who here cares what someone told you somewhere else? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC) Wow, what a surprise, the Chinese article is super sympathetic to nationalistic Chinese topics just like the Hindi article on Ayurveda is strongly influenced by Hindutva. Could it be that 50s Maoist propaganda continues to exert its effects throughout China? JoelleJay (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC) I'm impressed that Drs. Helene Langevin and Carolyn A. Bernstein mention sham acupuncture. But they simply do not address the fact that it works in their blogpost. Nor do they deal with the question of qi. This is not surprising. Acupuncture advocates simply do not deal with these subjects substantively. Instead, the idea is to lean against clinical studies that suffer from these very same methodological deficiencies. (If you look for effects without arguing for mechanisms, you can find all sorts of fun correlations especially when file drawer effects and p-hacking is so prevalent). Incidentally, both doctors receive a substantial amount of funding for promoting integrative medicine, so I am more than a bit concerned about motivated reasoning here. Now, shall we try again? jps (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC) Intro should just be an intro and not a single critique In yoga, we have a more neutral intro that doesn't go on and on about being a quack science or that yoga is not backed by evidence. In TCM, it deserves an intro that actually introduces the long history and the entire branches. But the unusually short and current intro instead gives the premature impression that practises like Tai Chi, accupuncture, Herbal drinks, etc are ineffective despite that's not really fair. The important aspect is whether the practises actually offers any benefits. Sometimes things like vaccination that was first invented by the Chinese accidentally about a thousand years ago was useful, despite they likely didn't understand it. But the practice proved beneficial and it continued. Accupuncture has been used by so many people for so long and is generally not harmful. We don't have a lot of high quality research to back the benefits but that doesn't mean it's useless and yields no benefits as this intro currently implies. Instead Accupuncture has some effects on serotonin levels which has many benefits but we are currently still in the process of understanding the whole thing via modern studies. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16565594/ So I think the intro should be neutral and not make sweeping critiques.. and instead the critique should stay in the criticism section that is already there. The intro should just be an intro. As long as we don't have enough studies to confirm that practises like Tai Chi or meditation is useless. It's wrong to write the entire discipline as being something to avoid and discredited when we don't even know enough about the human body and if accupuncture, meditation, Tai Chi or ginseng is useless and pointless garbage as this article intro made it seem like. Casualfoodie (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC) I prefer that we go with P&G, (Policy & Guidelines), so no thanks. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 11:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC) As a nutritional biochemist trained at MIT, who had a 40 year career in areas of effects of food and dietary supplements on health (and 15 years of editing articles at Wikipedia), I strongly join Roxy the dog in support of the Wikipedia requirements described at WP:MEDRS. There are literally thousands of poorly designed, poorly executed, poorly interpreted human trials on substances and practices stemming from everywhere in the world, not just Traditional Chinese Medicine. There are Ayurveda, Traditional Arabic Medicine, Homeopathy, and others mentioned at Alternative medicine. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has chosen an evidence-conservative pathway. Strong claims require strong evidence, such a what can be found in meta-analyses published in reputable, peer-reviewed science journals. David notMD (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC) Casualfoodie, Acupuncture isn't the topic of the article. But it may be useful to note that science has pretty well established that 'sham acupuncture' (for example, using stage needles like those pretend knives we had as children where the blade went back into the handle) works as well as inserting genuine needles. The question is not whether these practices have 'any benefits', but whether they have benefits beyond placebo. In any case, I agree with the others here that any claim of benefit must follow all our policies, particularly WP:MEDRS. MrOllie (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC) Accupuncture is a huge part of traditional Chinese medicine. Do you even know the basics of TCM? Most of it centres around qi and a vibrant nervous system. Scientists are only just starting to study accupuncture and it's physiological basis. Sources https://www.inverse.com/article/33787-acupuncture-science-complementary-medicine-pain-relief and it's a hard UNDENIABLE fact that there's currently a lack of quality research and such context shouldn't be hidden from the public when it's true and a relevant factor to keep in mind. Casualfoodie (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC) I'm going shopping inna minute, but I'd ask that you stop showing us rubbish, read WP:MEDRS again and try to present us with sources that we can use. Ask yourself why there a few good sources about the effectiveness of TCM. (Hint - It isn't effective) -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC) Thanks. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC) @MrOllie Show me your sources that it's a Sham science.i like to see that. Currently and I quote "There aren’t enough well-designed studies to rule out or confirm that improvements after acupuncture aren’t just a placebo effect or occur simply because you expect them to." Hence the intro should at least mention that undeniable and yet significant fact that there's overall limited research not just on accupuncture (which is a big part of TCM) but the entire field including Tai Chi, herbal medicines, etc. I don't see why people would see that as infactual as that is objectively true that not enough research has been conducted yet and that is something we can all at least agree on and confirm. Casualfoodie (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC) Casualfoodie, I didn't say it is a 'Sham science', I said that 'Sham acupuncture' works as well as the 'real' thing. Sham acupuncture is a common term for placebo controls used in this field. I assume you're not very familiar with the literature here. You can get started by looking at some of the citations currently used on the Acupuncture article. MrOllie (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC) How do you know it's not effective? Have you ever tried it? It's reported in research journals that it's difficult for scientists to be able to find out conclusively of accupuncture works as there's so many variables to work out. But here's a source. An ABC article noted that injecting naloxone - a known inhibitor of the brain's endorphin system - into cats blocked the ability of acupuncture to reduce blood pressure. Source https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/1999/06/04/27924.htm Casualfoodie (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC) A more than 20-year-old study? The idea that endorphins explain claimed acupuncture outcomes has since been fairly clearly problematicized. E.g. [3]. jps (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC) Intro dispute I was told to go to the talk page and hear your arguments on why my edit was wrong. I like to hear it here. I added in two edits recently that was later reverted. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1018138570 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1018138274 I added in that there was currently a lack of quality research on the field as that is true if you go Read the science journals. And also it wasn't a scholarly consensus that it has no logical basis..that claim came from a single opinion piece from Nature Other researchers like below admitted that they need more research to prove that certain activities and meridian points actually exist.. https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/1999/06/04/27924.htm TCM consists of such a wide branch of disciplines but centres mostly around merdian points and qi. Currently I read article of scientists are testing to see if there's indeed a physiological basis for accupuncture.. people have empirically felt beneficial effects however it could all just be placebo effect. But so far, research had not yet made a firm conclusion. As long as research is ongoing. It's just wrong to jump to conclusions as if we already know the answers. We are still learning and recent research shows that scientists found out that "injecting naloxone - a known inhibitor of the brain's endorphin system - into cats blocked the ability of acupuncture to reduce blood pressure." https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/1999/06/04/27924.htm And afterwards they found out and I quote; Effective acupuncture increased and prolonged the activity of serotonergic neurons in the reward system pathway of the brain. This suggests that oriental acupuncture therapy may be effective for the treatment of emotional disorders, drug abuse and alcoholism. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16565594/ So clearly we are still learning. It's not just accupuncture either.. Tai Chi disciplines have shown promising results as well as Astragalus for COPD. So it's not like we can say for a solid fact here that conclusive research has proven that merdian points are fake or accupuncture is useless or ineffective. You don't know that as there still needs research and data and sadly natural Herbal therapies generally don't get as much funding compared to big pharmaceutical. Hence its important to at least note that in the intro that research is still ongoing to prove meridian points, etc but there is currently a lack of quality research and that part is at least true here..Is there a neutral reason why such info shouldn't be added to give noted context? It's not our job to conclude that TCM doesn't work. It is our job to note the facts that there is currently a lack of research and current studies are still ongoing. And let the public be aware of that and not make conclusions for them. Btw there is no conclusive evidence yet to go show that TCM does not work. So it's also ultimately wrong here for the intro to outright imply that on the beginning of the article as if that is the most solid info.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casualfoodie (talk • contribs) 'it's not like we can say for a solid fact here that conclusive research has proven that merdian points are fake', that is rather the point. Meridian points are not falsifiable, which is exactly what makes this field 'fraught with pseudoscience', as the Nature piece says. - MrOllie (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC) And what's wrong in specifying that it was a Nature opinion piece that stated it was "fraught with pseudoscience"? I am not even suggesting that we delete that claim But making it clear to readers who said that particular phrase. Casualfoodie (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC) Why can't the intro mention that it was a nature opinion piece that made those specific claims? Or the fact that there's indeed currently a lack of quality research on the field? Those things are both true and should be mentioned. Casualfoodie (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC) Hello Casualfoodie. I am afraid to say that you can't really change the minds of the people here regarding TCM. The English Wikipedia editors have a very negative view of it and regards it as pseudoscience. The Chinese Wikipedia seems to have a less negative view of it, probably because it makes up a portion of the publicly-funded healthcare system in China. I guess this is just due to Wikipedia's systematic bias. At this point, you should probably just let it go. Sorry about that. Félix An (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC) I disagree about any lack of research. That's the traditional scientific phrase for "Please dont curtail my research funding" I fail to understand why believers in this sort of woo think that we should be doing more research into this nonsense. Science generally doesn't bother with nonsense. It's why little research is done on Flat Earth Theory or ESP or dogs that know when their owners are coming home. Perhaps more importantly, you must remember that Wikipedia is written from a mainstream scientific Point of View. In other words, Yes we are biased, towards reality There is an essay to that effect that I have copied to my userpage that you may find useful in understanding where this comes from. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC) Felix's comment is misleading and ignores WP:FOC. Editors' private lives and preferences are irrelevant (I personally like Tai Chi Chuan), reliable sources and WP policies are what matters, with the encyclopedia aiming to be mainstream and non-confessional, that is also not a platform for free speech (i.e. WP:NOTFORUM). —PaleoNeonate – 01:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC) Maybe it's the same for every natural therapies. Too many variables and not profitable enough to pursue. Nobody can patent accupuncture or TCM but that doesn't mean that it's nonsense. Not enough research on ginseng does not prove it is useless. Research however solidly shows serotonin levels rise during accupuncture. Also You wouldn't have all these universities continuing to scientifically study it if it was conclusively confirmed as nonsense. https://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/tcm-evidence-based-and-safe Even AACP said: Acupuncture has long been seen, incorrectly, as an alternative treatment for pain management, however, this new guideline reconfirms its effectiveness as a viable and medically proven treatment to reduce pain for millions, without the need for medication https://www.csp.org.uk/news/2021-04-15-nice-recommends-exercise-psychological-therapies-acupuncture-chronic-pain They endorse accupuncture and I don't see them endorsing flat earth or ESP Casualfoodie (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC) Again I ask you to read WP:MEDRS and learn about acceptable sources in medically related articles. Thanks. (I also urge you to read WP:TPG in order to understand how to use Talk pages effectively. At the moment you are butchering talk page etiquette, and it is becoming difficult to read your posts.) -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC) At this point, you should visit the Chinese Wikipedia's article regarding TCM. They don't have such a negative view of it, and their article for it does not say that it is pseudoscience. In fact, they have a dedicated article where arguments on both sides are weighed equally. I'm afraid you can't do much to change Roxy's mind. Félix An (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC) Funny how I keep giving sources that you keep ignoring..you're speculating that it's nonsense but here's a well researched Harvard paper directly contradicting you that there's research to show that it shouldn't be written off prematurely. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/acupuncture-for-headache-2018012513146 Casualfoodie (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC) Thanks Felix An. I actually think that's the best idea. Article should have a Balanced perspective where you present two sides of the story, as that is at least more fair and neutral given the genuine lack of conclusive evidence. Since we clearly have professionals like Harvard, AACP, etc stating that accupuncture and TCM works and shows their research, while others scholars just write it off without actually doing research.. I quote: Indeed, from the 1970s to around 2005, the skeptic’s point of view was understandable, because the scientific evidence to show that acupuncture worked, and why, was weak, and clinical trials were small and of poor quality. But things have changed since then. A lot. Individual large-scale clinical studies have consistently demonstrated that acupuncture provided better pain relief compared with usual care. However, most studies also showed little difference between real and sham (fake) acupuncture. In order to address this concern, a 2012 meta-analysis combined data from roughly 18,000 individual patients in 23 high-quality randomized controlled trials of acupuncture for common pain conditions. This analysis conclusively demonstrated that acupuncture is superior to sham for low back pain, headache, and osteoarthritis, and improvements seen were similar to that of other widely used non-opiate pain relievers. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/acupuncture-for-headache-2018012513146 Clearly not all scholars consider TCM disciplines as complete nonsense and the Wikipedia article needs to include all scholar views such as the Harvard paper above. To allow just one writer to completely and overwhelmingly dominate the introduction is not Balanced especially when there's a wide range of scholars who clearly disagrees with his opinion. Casualfoodie (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC) We wont make any progress without sources that meet WP:MEDRS I suggest that you stop wasting our time giving us unreliable ones. If you want to change the way we use sources, and the type of sources that are acceptable, then you are in the wrong place. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC) @ Roxy the grumpy dog We won't get anywhere if you keep gaslighting that I didn't give reliable sources. You just keep pretending as if I didn't..yet my last reply clearly gave you a Harvard medical article stating: In order to address this concern, a 2012 meta-analysis combined data from roughly 18,000 individual patients in 23 high-quality randomized controlled trials of acupuncture for common pain conditions. This analysis conclusively demonstrated that acupuncture is superior to sham for low back pain, headache, and osteoarthritis, and improvements seen were similar to that of other widely used non-opiate pain relievers. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/acupuncture-for-headache-2018012513146 And here's all the sources to back that Harvard paper who already provided sources in its page. Sources Acupuncture in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomised trial. Lancet, July 2005. Acupuncture in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA Internal Medicine, February 2006. Acupuncture in patients with tension-type headache: randomised controlled trial. BMJ, August 2005. Acupuncture for Patients With Migraine: A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA, May 2005. Acupuncture for Chronic Pain: Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis. JAMA Internal Medicine, October 2012. Survey of Adverse Events Following Acupuncture (SAFA): a prospective study of 32,000 consultations. Acupuncture in Medicine, December 2001. Safety of Acupuncture: Results of a Prospective Observational Study with 229,230 Patients and Introduction of a Medical Information and Consent Form. Complementary Medicine Research, April 2009. The safety of acupuncture during pregnancy: a systematic review. Acupuncture in Medicine, June 2014. Cost-effectiveness of adjunct non-pharmacological interventions for osteoarthritis of the knee. PLOS One, March 2017. Paradoxes in Acupuncture Research: Strategies for Moving Forward. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medcine, 2011. The Long-term Effect of Acupuncture for Migraine Prophylaxis: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Internal Medicine, April 2017. Don't say I never gave sources. I just did. Casualfoodie (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC) Where? Those Do not meet our requirements See WP:MEDRS for guidance. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC) Are we calling blogposts with laundry lists "papers" now? I'm also unclear why copypasta (especially when repeating it multiple times on the same page) is supposed to be impressive. jps (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC) Listing an article's references, many of which are not MEDRS, does not validate the article. David notMD (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Basic confusion: "TCM" was not found in Traditional China; it was a 20th century invented tradition

In traditional China there were many schools and types of medicine, there was no medical profession to enforce a monopoly of practice. Only when missionaries and Japanese doctors introduced the medicine of their day did the need arise to call anything "Chinese medicine." It was just "medicine." In the 1920s, partly with the backing of the government, medical schools applied new techniques and tried to identify what could be selected from earlier practices to create a Traditional Chinese Medicine. It then got very complicated, but the point here is that this article confuses "medicine in traditional China" with Traditional Chinese Medicine. TCM is a good example of an Invented tradition. Please see, among many others, Andrews, Bridie (2013). The Making of Modern Chinese Medicine. Vancouver: UBC Press. ISBN 0774824328.

Therefore the lead and the article should distinguish the two. Medicine in traditional China should be explained in the same neutral terms used in Traditional medicine: "comprises medical aspects of traditional knowledge that developed over generations within the folk beliefs of various societies before the era of modern medicine." Then explain that TCM is derived from traditional practice but different from it. The more up to date version of NCCAM2012 (cited in note 2 and 7 others) explains that "In the United States, TCM is considered part of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)," and that "In spite of the widespread use of TCM in China and its use in the West, scientific evidence of its effectiveness is, for the most part, limited." This is a more explicit and reliable source than the editorial used in the present lead, and is more precise.

The treatment of actual practice in traditional China is elaborate trash, incomplete and very misleading, because it continues this confusion. ch (talk) 05:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Nixon and Mao have a lot to answer for, dont they. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 05:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

At least one of them was "not a crook".

About the suggestion: Sounds good. The article does mention Mao's actions and quotes Levinovitz "Chairman Mao Invented Traditional Chinese Medicine" several times, but the lead should not be silent about this important aspect. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Entirely agree that the lead must emphasize that TCM as practiced today does not meet scientific standards. I am uncomfortable but will go along with applying the label "pseudoscientific," which is not applied to other Traditional medicines, to TCM of today. The lead can make clear that, again, medical practice in traditional China was much messier and unsystematic than what is called TCM today -- sometimes appalling, sometimes a beautiful philosophical system, sometimes deadly, and in some instances more effective than the Western counterpart. It must be explained in its complexity and historical context, which TCM practitioners do not do when they cherry-pick only what they want. Medicine in Europe before Pasteur and the creation of the modern medical profession, was, of course, equally messy and unsystematic.ch (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I should note we apply the same standards to Ayurveda and Siddha Medicine, though I agree it could be worded better. I agree that the lead should mention and emphasise the creation of modern TCM in 1950 by the CCP. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2021

This is biased: "Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is a branch of traditional medicine in China. It has been described as "fraught with pseudoscience", and the majority of its treatments as having no logical mechanism of action.[1] " The source is also incorrect. The efficacy of TCM has been clearly shown. From pubmed... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20192915/ "Objectives: 'The methodology of a randomized clinical trial (RCT) is not free from bias', and the unique features of TCM (such as individualization and holism) further complicate effective execution of RCTs in TCM therapies. Thus, data from limited RCTs and systematic reviews need to be interpreted with great caution. Nevertheless, until new and specific methodology is developed that can adequately address these methodology challenges for RCTs in TCM, evidence from quality RCTs and systematic reviews still holds the credibility of TCM in the scientific community. additionally... From Lin, Zhen MD; Jiang, Mengyuan MD; Gao, Lirong MD; Zhang, Huachun MD∗Author Information Medicine: September 25, 2020 - Volume 99 - Issue 39 - p e22403 doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000022403

"2.2.4.1 Primary outcomes

The criterion of efficacy was divided into 4 categories refer to WHO standard. Complete Remission (CR): effusion disappears and symptoms are relieved for at least 4 weeks; Partial Remission (PR): the effusion was reduced by more than 50% compared with that before treatment, and the symptoms were relieved and maintained for at least 4 weeks; Stable (SD): the effusion decreased by less than 50% compared with that before treatment, with no increasing trend, and the symptoms partially relieved; Invalid (PD): effusion grows rapidly. The total effective rate was (CR+PR)/ (CR+PR+SD+PD) × 100%."

Just a couple of "positive" reports/studies on the efficacy of TCM. There is a lot of info like this that is easily obtainable. The linguistic bias up front in this wiki is obvious and should be corrected. Thank you 2001:5B0:2C49:34E8:3801:5AF1:7866:1F0C (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not an edit request. You need to be very specific in your edit request, perhaps indicating what you think should be changed, and with a WP:MEDRS source to support your change. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 19:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

That source seems to be a MEDRS, so I will add it in and keep it alongside the pseudoscience claim. Félix An (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you would find it useful to review WP:MEDRS again, preferably before you edit the article. thanks. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 19:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is it not MEDRS? I reviewed the policy and found no apparent violations.Idealistic Lily (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It's in an unreliable publication, and is ten years old. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 21:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

10 years is not unacceptably old for MEDRS when there is a scarcity of newer material available. Some medical topics that don't see a lot of new studies being published use sources that are a LOT older than that, because that's all that there is. You've declared that it is an "unreliable publication", but failed to go into any additional details as to why it is unreliable. is every source that contains something you personally don't like automatically considered unreliable? Firejuggler86 (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I like reliable sources. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 09:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

To give a proper answer. It's in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, which is published by Society for Acupuncture Research, a pro-acupuncture avocacy group. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Editing pseudoscientific claims

we need to look at the research clearly. There is evidence to support traditional chinese medicine is not psuedoscience. I do not mind adding skepticism at the end of the page. But to put it blatantly in the beginning is unfair to research that supports its efficacy from major scientific journal articles that are recent. The nature of science is revision. lets be civil please. In your optimism i will be removing the pseudoscientific part in the intro.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ToltecShaman (talk • contribs)

Hello @ToltecShaman: Please read the archives of this talk page for the previous discussions on the subject. This is to avoid wasting time on subjects that have already been discussed multiple times and where consensus has been reached. Also, last I checked, vital energy and qi are as pseudo-scientific as it gets, so removing the notion from the intro (or the rest of the article) seems highly unlikely. --McSly (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I have posted at Wikiproject Medicine's talkpage, asking that editors with experience in assessing the reliability of medical sources look at this discussion. Editors can review the changes that ToltecShaman was making in the article history to see the content and sourcing. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 18:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

China is the primary consumer of illegal ivory

I'm not sure what ivory has to do a Chinese medicine. I have heard about rhino horn used as medicine, but not ivory. The source does not mention in Chinese medicine. --Zaurus (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source?

Hi, would https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0753332221000524 be considered a reliable secondary source for adding a bullet to the efficacy section about COVID-19? It is a compilation of previous results, and it is in Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy. It seems legit to me but I'm not an expert on WP:MEDRS so I was reluctant to boldly add it, since I'm sure this is a controversial topic. Danstronger (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Good question -- I don't see any other articles from the journal, but the Wikipedia article says it is published by Elsevier and peer reviewed.

But my bigger fear is that the section is turning into a random listing, with no criteria as to what gets listed, and that is therefore not useful. See WP:NOTLINKFARM and WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

So rather than run the risk of seeming to support or oppose particular treatments, I will propose cutting the list entirely, in favor of more general references. Does this make sense? ch (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the bulleted list should probably be replaced with something in paragraph form. Maybe something like what exists at Chinese_herbology#Efficacy? Although all that content probably doesn't need to be duplicated in both locations, and it can probably be compressed quite a bit. I.e. each individual review doesn't need its own sentence; they can all be grouped together and summarized. I would lean towards at least giving the specific positive results an explicit mention somewhere though. Danstronger (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Not a reliable medical source, far from it, in fact. Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 08:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Care to elaborate on why you think that? It's a peer-reviewed third-party secondary review, in a reputable journal, as far as I can tell. Danstronger (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

... from china ... -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 16:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't see that the journal is Chinese on the WP (stub) article Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy or its site: https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/biomedicine-and-pharmacotherapy , but my big concern is that it's bad policy to go with a single article in a big field.

I think finding an overview or review article would be much better.ch (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like Roxy's objection is that the authors are Chinese? Which feels more like bias than WP:MEDRS to me. This article is a systematic review, in the sense that they searched Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, etc. for articles testing CHM on covid-19, and then analyzed the results. Many RCTs are involved. Do you mean you'd rather have a review that covers CHM applied to all illnesses? I'm not sure if that exists. Danstronger (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Again, a good and real question, but my concern is not so much about this article, which now does sound reliable, as about the section. The section (which BTW also lists TCM) now is a list of individual treatments, not a discussion of CHM (Herbology) or TCM's overall efficacy. The problem is, as you rightly point out, that trying to describe overall efficacy doesn't make sense, any more than would a section on the overall efficacy of Western medicine. But the section now mixes (as does the whole article) items from "Medicine in Traditional China" with the 20th century invention, TCM (I am going to add a History section on Republican China to clarify the distinction).

In the meantime, I continue to support Roxy the dog's insistence that Wikipedia cannot sanction or propagate pseudoscience, and that much of TCM falls into that category. But I also would support Danstronger in finding a way to handle this section that is better than a bulleted list and would include successes as well as failures (as the list does). A particular treatment may or may not be CHM/ TCM simply because it's developed in China, and not necessarily pseudoscience if called CHM/ TCM. That, however, get us into bigger questions that should be discussed elsewhere.

I'd be surprised if there's not a summary or general article more recent than 2007! If not, is it OR to list articles on no explicable principle?ch (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

This Nature article from 2018 might be what you're looking for: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06782-7 I could see replacing the list with some general negative statements based on that ("Critics argue that there is no physiological evidence that qi or meridians exist, and scant evidence that TCM works. There have been just a handful of cases in which Chinese herbal treatments have proved effective in randomized controlled clinical trials") followed by a paragraph description of the few specific positive results, e.g. turmeric, artemisinin, covid-19. Danstronger (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

A couple of things arise from Dan's comment. Despite what he says above, there have been no Chinese herbal treatments that have proved effective in clinical trials, the few specific positive examples claimed being unreliable Chinese sources. Dan's examples "fact checked" - Turmeric has no clinical benefits. - The only positive results of TCM on Covid have been Chinese. - Artemisinin's discovery and isolation was Nobel winning science not related to TCM garbology. - These have all been discussed before, and the Nature article noted above does not contradict what I have pointed out here. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 15:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

It looks like an exceedingly dubious source. It makes quite a lot of extraordinary assertions; the first one I checked failed verification. The authors write that "During the SARS epidemic, TCM played an important role in reducing mortality and alleviating patients' symptoms". This is supported by a citation to this paper in the Lancet, which would be a fine source, except that it does not mention TCM's role in reducing mortality. It doesn't even mention TCM at all, as far as I can see, the only treatments discussed in the paper are antivirals, antibiotics, corticosteroids, continual renal replacemet therapy, and various types of oxygen support. Very dodgy - I wouldn't support using a source like this to support any assertion, let alone a biomedical one. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Related discussion

User talk:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased.#I'm a "lunatic charlatan" since I use traditional Chinese medicine! Help, what do I do?

Guy Macon (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

safety - irrelevant paragraph on covid-19

At the end of the safety section, there is a paragraph on bat droppings that doesn't seem to have anything to do with traditional chinese medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.46.152 (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

According to the citation ([4]) it does. Danstronger (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 June 2019 and 31 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SairaDorantes.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Inacurrate understanding and description of Chinese medicine.

The vague claim that Chinese medicine is pseudoscience based on an article that ignores the overwhelming research that many countries around the world including China, Korea, Japan, and the U.S. have done in treating diseases, and is therefore biased and opinion based. Opinions of this nature only demonstrate the lack of knowledge of this medicine the writers of this opinion have, and should be dismissed.

Here is an example of TCM treating Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26275654/

Treating Cardiomyopathy https://journals.lww.com/md-journal/Fulltext/2020/07020/Traditional_Chinese_medicine_on_treating_dilated.38.aspx Chinese medicine believes that the pathogenesis of DCM is due to insufficiency of natural endowment, yang deficiency, and treatment based on the principle of supplementing qi and benefiting yang. TCM combined with conventional western medicine can effectively improve ejection fraction, reduce left ventricular end diastolic diameter, and improve exercise tolerance.[18] Studies have shown that components of Radix Astragali can reduce myocardial inflammation and fibrosis, and protect heart function and morphological abnormalities.[19] In recent years, due to the extensive development of clinical trials, the vigorous promotion of Chinese medicine has been applied to the clinic. TCM may be used as a complementary and alternative approach to primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.[20] TCM has significant effects in treating heart diseases such as heart failure, arrhythmia, and coronary heart disease.

Traditional Chinese medicine is effective and an object of much research. Traditional Chinese medicine pharmacology is a study of its own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fea8:8481:9000:1c19:e36a:ad58:839c (talk • contribs)

Read WP:MEDRS. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Even if TCM did indeed help, that does not validate the entirety of TCM, or the underlying debunked concepts and philosophy. WIKINIGHTS _talk 15:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Even if there are "underlying debunked concepts and philosophy", that does not invalidate the comment by the above poster. Use your critical thinking skills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.46.152 (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

It's important to remember that Western "debunking" of traditional medicinal practices comes from a colonial project of using traditional medicines for profit.

https://liftmode.wordpress.com/2017/03/10/pharmaceutical-colonialism-3-ways-that-western-medicine-takes-from-indigenous-communities/ 2A01:4B00:84DD:2000:B9C5:458A:7AF2:CCA0 (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The above article is from an unreliable source. Here are some reliable sources discussing the colonial roots of biases in favour of Western medicine and tendency to discount other medical practices:

https://jme.bmj.com/content/46/4/265.abstract

http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2520-98682018000400008

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02991.x

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/4141Ratsalad99 (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

If it does not work, it does not work. None of that is a fault of Western people, nor of colonialism. It is a matter of epistemology. The difference is that mainstream medicine has said farewell to childish superstition, be it Christian, Jewish, Medieval European, or Greek-Roman. The matter whether TCM works better than placebo cannot be solved through crying "Political correctness!" Western scientists have learned that magic and superstition do not work, and this is by no means a colonialist claim. That political ideology could replace empiric-analytical research is the peak of irrationality. Postmodernism in medicine seems to boil down to: there are no facts, and every claimed fact is a political-ideological POV. You are conflating between evidence-based medical consensus and ideological propaganda.

You might try to reply with Artemisinin, but TCM is about boiled Artemisia, which has 0 (zero) therapeutic effect. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Intro revision

Discussion of TCM's status as being considered a pseudoscience is well discussed under the 'critique' heading. Perhaps the intro would be better suited to focusing on describing TCM, its history and usage, and quotations from journals discussing and evaluating the practice of TCM should remain under the 'critique' heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratsalad99 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The purpose of the intro is to summarize the entirety of the article (see WP:LEAD), and in our case, that would include the criticism section as well. --McSly (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Good point! Perhaps the discursive sentence could be moved to lower down in the intro alongside the mention of wildlife smuggling, or the uncited description of vital energy as pseudoscientific, rather than being the second sentence of the intro. This would reflect its mention in the article and leave space for description of the subject to lead the intro. Ratsalad99 (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

As the most important thing about TCM is that it doesn't work, I suggest not changing the lead's first paragraph. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 20:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a point of view and not neutral Ratsalad99 (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, neutrality means that we accurately reflect the best sources, not that we take no position at all. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. - MrOllie (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I would direct you to the last article linked under "Inacurrate understanding and description of Chinese medicine" heading on this talk page. Represents a well-documented opposing point of view. Ratsalad99 (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

A blog post from a company that sells snake-oil 'health supplements'? Far, far below our sourcing standards. Please have a look at WP:MEDRS if you'd like to contribute to medical topics on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Ooooh yes that is not a great source to be using, thanks for pointing that out! I've added some sources from more reliable publications below the original comment.

Continuing along these lines however, I would argue that since the quotation from Nature in the lead paragraph of the article is an editorial, it would not pass the reliable medical sources standard either. Or at the very least, if it could be considered to reside in a grey area, perhaps it is reliable enough for inclusion in the article, but not in the lead paragraph.

At the very least, I would recommend identifying the source of the quotation, as well as perhaps the author. Since it is a single person's point of view, the passive voice used to deliver the quote is misleading. Ratsalad99 (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

In support of this claim, the suggestion from Wikipedia:Reliable sources is that "Editorial commentary...written by the editors of the publication (editorials)...are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The wording of the lede, however, suggests this claim as a statement of fact. Therefore, I also suggest that this reference and the associated statement be moved to the bottom paragraph of the lead, together with the animal ethics issues, or to the Critique section.

Minor addition to the reply above, this reference was not used as a medical source or biomedical information, so it falls under Wikipedia:Reliable sources instead of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), and does follow the guidelines. Thus it should indeed be reliable enough for inclusion in the article. GavinXLu (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Revised and augmented lead sentence

We've discussed on this Talk Page, for instance HERE, how to make clear the distinction between "medicine in traditional China", which was a wide and conflicting variety of thoughts and practices, and "Traditional Chinese Medicine", which was invented in the twentieth century, and which is the target of the "pseudo-science" label. So it's not quite right to say TCM is a "branch" of traditional Chinese medicine, though it is entirely appropriate to call it pseudo-science. So my edit is intended to make this distinction clear.ch (talk) 03:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

What is traditional China? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Hob Gadling. If a question can hit a nail on the head, yours is one that does it! “Traditional China” is outmoded, unanalytical, misleading, generally avoided among careful writers, but practically inescapable. As explained at Discovering History in China, it gained popularity after WWII as a way of labeling anything that was not “modern”. In practical terms, it sometimes meant "them", not "us", sometimes “old,” “back then,” “before anybody can remember,” or in the case of China, “before 1949" or sometimes “before 1911.” The article History of China uses Ancient, Imperial, and Modern, which is a little but not much better.

Since Wikipedia's strength is editing by non-scholars, articles grew by accretion, not planning. There was no stopping "traditional" and now no practical way to weed it out. Just enter “Traditional Chinese” into the Wikipedia search box at the top right of this page and stand back.

Titling this article “Traditional Chinese Medicine” (in capitals) causes tremendous but understandable confusion, since “traditional medicine” did not exist (as such) in “traditional China.” If you can read Chinese, you will see that the article’s Chinese name is “Chinese medicine,” which is what TCM is called in Chinese. TCM is certainly important in today's China, but it's different from "medicine in China before 1949" -- OK, for convenience "Medicine in traditional China."

We should work out a lede sentence that will explain this to an ordinary reader.ch (talk) 04:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Biases

Very subjective description, I advise someone edit this 114.42.9.159 (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Which part? The part where we quote secondary scientific literature instead of personal anecdotes? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Commercial web sites as references

The section about Tui na massage is sourced to a commercial web site, which I believe is not reliable. The citation also falsely claims it is a journal article. Are any better references available? Are any other sources also of low quality? ScienceFlyer (talk) 06:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and the page linked doesn’t really support the text it follows; it seems to have been added to pre-existing text in this edit. Looking at the main article for tui na, perhaps the sources cited in the lead there would be better places to find a basic description of the practice. I’ve replaced it with the Ernst book cited there. Brunton (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there a distinction between Traditional Chinese medicine and ancient Chinese medicine?

Alexysun (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Yup, TCM was basically produced by Maoism. ACM was very diverse and sometimes contradictory (ancient Chinese doctors disagreed upon many issues, sometimes fundamental). tgeorgescu (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

So why isn't there a separate article? Alexysun (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Yup, History of Chinese medicine redirects here, but technically is a different subject. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

New Section

For Dao Yao -art of combining different herbs needed.

~~Ted~~ 2607:FEA8:4A2:4100:AD3B:1C68:D290:AD61 (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you think restructuring the lead like this is better?

I decided to restructure the lead section by grouping the introduction, history, and criticisms together, rather than having them scattered. (Please note that I did not remove any of the original text.) User:MrOllie swiftly reverted my edits, so I assume he did not like it, but what do all you you think? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Traditional_Chinese_medicine&oldid=1146044532 Félix An (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Pushing the most important context (that it isn't based on logic or science) to the end isn't an improvement. MrOllie (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Anyone else? Félix An (talk) 06:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree with MrOllie. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Any other opinions? Félix An (talk) 11:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it reads better as it is now, so I too agree with MrOllie. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Reading this attempted "restructuring" is painfully dreadful. The lead sentence is redundant (could we quote it in MOS:REDUNDANCY instead of "Pakistani–Iraqi relations are the relations between Pakistan and Iraq."?), and TCM's empirical ineffectiveness is buried in the last paragraph. Keahapana (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:PROFRINGE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

TCM is immune to falsification. That's why there is no EBM approach to TCM, other than calling it quackery.

TCM is quackery, and it is irredeemably so.

And don't quote artemisinin: TCM boiled the plant, rendering it therapeutically powerless. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Wait so is this a statement or an accusation? Are you accusing the article of being pro-quackery, or just stating that TCM is quackery? Uness232 (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

My statements were a reaction to a recent edit. I'm not accusing the article. I just stated that the mystical concepts of TCM are incompatible with the scientific method and with evidence-based medicine. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it's important that we not present information about unscientific health practices in ways that mislead our readers into thinking that they are scientific, so I support those reverts. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I see. I was simply confused by the placement of this argument in the talk page after the reverts have been done, not trying to claim that the reverted edits were okay. Maybe this article merits some protection since it gets vandalized often? Uness232 (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

What is mystical about it? Are you a student or academic with specialty on Chinese medicine? If not, on what basis are your comments based on? K2wong (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

People with an actual expertise in medicine (real medicine, not "traditional medicine") have said so. That's all that matters. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

That's your basis? And who are those "REAL" medicine have authority on Chinese Medicine? I am assuming you are referring to allopathic medicine. Tell me, what diseases have they able to cure? You have no idea what the clinical environment and the limitation of conventional medicine. So, I must assume that you are part of the pharmaceutical industry in pushing the idea that other medicine are not scientific, and that allopathic medicine has a monopoly on science. 66.7.95.212 (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I can confidently say given that you reject the effectiveness of modern medicine and are invoking big pharma conspiracies that you are a crank, and that it's not worth wasting by time talking to you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See Also list is too big

There's over two dozen links there. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:48AA:8774:EFCB:2856 (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Source "Understanding Traditional Chinese Medicine Therapeutics: An Overview of the Basics and Clinical Applications"

Could someone please explain why the cited articles by the editting user was simply categorized as "Junk research" by the reverting user? GavinXLu (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I replaced the title of this section because of WP:TALKHEADPOV: "Don't address other users in a heading". This is the reverted edit in question: [5]

Because of the unreliability of the cited source. -Roxy the dog 08:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, after looking at the sources user Soupysubstrate cited, I think they are secondary sources that adheres to the guideline in [6]WP:NOR. GuangyanLi (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

These are medical claims, so they need to meet WP:MEDRS. These sources do not - they are poor quality journals, not indexed by MEDLINE. MrOllie (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"—let's face the reality: TCM was a farce played by Mao because People's Republic of China lacked money for Western-style anesthetics and Western-style medicines. It never was anything else, and it will never be anything else. Evidence-based medicine is hugely expensive. That's why China, India, and such countries cannot afford large-scale EBM. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

If you have no credential in Chinese medicine, please refrain from making accusations that have no basis. K2wong (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Only quacks allowed to say something. Right. Stop it, this is not a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Change infobox image back to photograph

In April, editor 梦随飞絮 changed the infobox image from this one:

1.

A prescription section of a pharmacy in Nanning, Guangxi, China selling prepackaged Chinese and Western medicine (left) and Chinese medicinal herbs (right).

to this one (diff)

2.

File:Traditional Chinese medicine2.jpg

The picture shows the doctor is selecting the traditional Chinese medicine for customers.

and then to the current one (diff)

3.

Yinyang, a theory of traditional Chinese medicine

In my opinion, a photograph is a more representative image for the article. While it does deserve a place, the yinyang symbol is already included in the #Philosophical background section. The photographs also address the subject itself, rather than a subtopic.

Between the two photographs, I prefer #1. It shows a nice contrast between medications and TCM in a modern Chinese context. However, I do see the merits of #2 (shows the herbs itself instead of packaging). Let me know what you think. HenryMP02 (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support changing back to photo #1, for the reasons stated above. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I am going to change it back. HenryMP02 (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)