Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

what planet you are to have blue woods? trigram Li fire female inside yin ~ kan water male outside yang do you understand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiangzi9 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a yin and yang to brain excitability (Figure 2): complementary opposites interact within a unified whole of stroke progression. A key element to translating this concept to human neural repair therapies is to determine the inflection point for acute to chronic roles, from yin to yang, in brain excitability effects

Carmichael, S. Thomas (1 February 2012). "Brain Excitability in Stroke". JAMA Neurology. 69 (2): 161. doi:10.1001/archneurol.2011.1175.

-A1candidate (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes? -- Brangifer (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It's exciting ... isn't it? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not just exciting, but also clinically relevant and an excellent MEDRS source for this article. -A1candidate 19:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what this article has to do with TCM. QuackGuru (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The article, as its sub-header suggests, deals with The Yin and Yang of Stroke Progression: "Stroke triggers early increases in excitability that are deleterious. In later phases of recovery, the precise signaling systems in brain excitability that were deleterious now become beneficial. Brain excitability after stroke involves 2 contrary actions of a similar set of signaling systems within an interconnected whole: a yin and yang of stroke progression" -A1candidate 20:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't tell if you are joking or not? You must realize that "Yin and Yang" have at this point entered the English lexicon. This article has enough issues without such silliness.24.4.204.245 (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I’ve always respected Wikipedia for presenting an unbiased coverage of a topic. When I read the article on TCM I was horrified by how many editorial opinions are presented throughout the material. It’s as if a western pharmaceutical company re-wrote the article and hand selected references to materially discredit TCM and associate it with communism. I would like to see the article be more factual and stick to presenting an overview of the subject and avoid presenting so many opinions. Just because an opinion is referenced doesn’t make it correct.

TCM is a medical practice with over 3,000 years of trial and error, or possibly the longest continual drug trial and scientific experiment on the planet. TCM was brought to the U.S. from Taiwan so communist Chinese had no influence to what was introduced here, yet the article implies Mao and the communist had a significant hand in shaping TCM. TCM herbology is very threatening to big pharma because it often can produce significantly more cost effective medicinal alternatives which offer patients relief without the significant side effects or expense of modern synthesized pharmaceuticals.

The question isn’t can TCM cure cancer, but can it help common daily maladies; indigestion, achy muscles (fibromyalgia is the pharmaceutical term), and lower blood pressure. Western medicine has approximately 100-years of scientific history, but is unwilling to learn from the Chinese’ 3,000 years of complied learning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bebersold (talk • contribs) 16:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This article needs to be heavily reviewed and either fairly represent TCM or remove the biased opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bebersold (talk • contribs) 16:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This change appears to be a violation of WP:ASSERT. QuackGuru (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that a violation. We should careful to attribute when opinions are given, and if critics use a charged word like "superstition" we should attribute that rather than assert in our voice. I doubt anyone has a problem asserting that TCM is based on pre-scientific notions, but the word "superstition" should be attributed.Herbxue (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I think Novella is not a great source for what this text is trying to accomplish. There is one aspect of TCM theory ("essential substances") that could be said to be similar to European humoral theory. I don't think thats enough to say that TCM is similar to humoral theory, and Novella is mainly focused on whether or not medical practices conform to contemporary evidence-based standards, not on the history of traditional medicine or comparative medical history. We should not asset his comparisons and labels as our own.Herbxue (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

TCM in unambiguously pseudoscientific, and its prehistoric conception of anatomy is noted in numerous sources. There's no reason to shy away from stating as much in Wikipedia's voice. The suggested attribution would make it appear that the view that TCM is not superstition is of equivalent weight.—Kww(talk) 20:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

This change was clearly original research and the text now too complicated for the general reader. QuackGuru (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I think if we try we can find mutually acceptable text here, without dismissing this good-faith edit by a completely uninvolved editor. My recommendations, in order of preference:

1. Remove the word superstitious from the original text and assert in WP's voice that TCM has a similarity (albeit a very limited and superficial one) to humoral therapy and that it is based on pre-scientific notions.

2. Keep original text but attribute it to Novella by name (as it includes the opinion that TCM is "superstitious").

3. Keep user notreallydavid's edit as is.

Herbxue (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

This presumes that there actually was something wrong with the original version. The comparison to humoral theory isn't the issue, so much as clearly stating that TCM doesn't have a scientific basis. What do you see as the fundamental difference between "pre-scientific" and "superstition"?—Kww(talk) 02:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

There was something wrong with the original version, as indicated by a neutral editor seeing a need to attribute the strong wording of Novella. Chinese medicine is based on observing the way the body responds to natural phenomena (heat, cold, dampness, wind, etc) and linking diagnoses or theories to observable signs or symptoms. All these signs, symptoms, assumptions about physiology and pathology, and treatments are linked by rational theories that Paul Unschuld refers to as the "medicine of systematic correspondences". This is quite different than the idea of superstition. One could argue that the concept of Qi is superstitious because in English it is often incorrectly referred to as "energy" when in actual usage in source texts the term has different meanings that require context to translate. Sometimes it literally just means gas, as in flatulence. The theories and practice of Chinese medicine do not require belief in magical or nefarious forces, which is what superstition is. It is definitely a leap to go from "pre-scientific" to "superstitious". Do you believe it is absolutely necessary to use that word in particular to drive home the point that TCM is not science-based medicine? Seems like you can easily make that point without using contentious wording.Herbxue (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not demanding the word "superstition" be used, and I don't think the relationship to humoral theory is either strong or particularly important. I'm happy with a flat, WP-voiced, characterisation of it as "pre-scientific" with citations.—Kww(talk) 19:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Herbxue, I restored the previous version with a small tweak per the discussion above.[1] The current text says that: "Concepts of the body and of disease used in TCM has notions of a pre-scientific culture, similar to European humoral theory." What do you think? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks Jayaguru. And thanks Kww for clarifying.Herbxue (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Traditional Chinese medicine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130524152435/http://www.springerlink.com/content/r3371v1625353774/ to http://www.springerlink.com/content/r3371v1625353774/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• The archive does not work. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I have edited the section on eight principles and correctly titled it eight principles of diagnosis. Someone has incorrectly named the principles of deficient and excess as vacuity and repletion, these are very uncommon terms and not the ones most practitioners or texts are using so I changed them, hope everyone is okay with this.Chuangzu (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes good call. They are Nigel Wiseman terms, and he is a recognized authority, but I don't believe they have, will, or should catch on as replacement for deficiency and excess.Herbxue (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

There are other drugs which have been tested in labs and found to work.

Yunnan Baiyao.

Glucose enhances anti cancer effects in triptolide from the "thunder god vine".

A cancer remedy has potentially been found in Compound kushen injection

Rajmaan (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia's own definitions TCM is "alternative medicine". But the TCM Wikipedia page includes no explicit caution that TCM is not evidence based modern medicine, as seen in the alternative medicine Wikipedia page. Nor does it include a criticism section as seen in the alternative medicine page. I think this should be addressed.

To clarify that TCM is already alternative medicine by Wikipedia's own account:

The TCM wikipedia page under the introduction section says: "TCM "holds that the body's VITAL ENERGY (chi or qi) circulates through channels, called meridians, that have branches connected to bodily organs and functions.""

Then clicking the VITAL ENERGY link brings you to VITALISM Wikipedia page where it is defined as "an obsolete scientific doctrine".

That alone should suffice, as the entire practice is identified by Wikipedia as being based in a system that is not accepted science based medicine.

But you can also look at each Wikipedia page of the practices mentioned in the TCM page:

Herbal Medicine link -> Chinese Herbology Wikipedia page: "fraught with pseudoscience" and "The effectiveness of traditional Chinese herbal therapy remains poorly documented."

Poorly documented efficacy precludes it from science based modern medicine making it alternative medicine. As does the term "pseudoscience" ascribed to it from the leading scientific journal in the world.

Acupuncture link -> "is a form of alternative medicine", "pseudoscience", "not based upon scientific evidence"

Tui Na link -> "See also: Alternative medicine, Glossary of alternative medicine", "NCCAM Classifications ("List of forms of Alternative Medicine")"

Qigong -> "the scientific basis for much of TCM and CAM has not been demonstrated", "Based on systematic reviews of clinical research, it is not advisable to draw conclusions concerning effectiveness of qigong for specific medical conditions at this stage", it also references vitalism again. And again, a lack of empirical evidence precludes a practice from being science based modern medicine, which relegates it to alternative medicine.

I would like to suggest that the beginning of the TCM page include the warning given in the Alternative Medicine page:

"is a practice that is perceived by its users to have the healing effects of medicine, but does not originate from evidence gathered using the scientific method, is not part of biomedicine, or is contradicted by scientific evidence or established science."

It would also be great to establish a criticism section as seen in the Alternative Medicine page.

The lede explicitly calls TCM a form of alternative medicine and links to the alternative medicine article. This entire article is peppered with criticism and assessment of the current state of research on the subject. The first goal of an encyclopedia is to describe the subject, not to give an assessment of the subject. Sources assess the subject, and those sources that are critical of the subject are well represented in this article.Herbxue (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that this Wikipedia entry is, by and large, an assessment rather than a description. Steven Barrett is even cited as a source despite the fact that he is clearly an activist and not a scholar. The Alternative Medicine page, where the term "alternative" fundamentally indicates a comparison, is the appropriate locus for a detailed comparison between Western medicine and Chinese medicine. The current TCM page requires extensive editing to bring it up to academic standards and provide objective information without the obfuscation of pejorative content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhardigan (talk • contribs) 10:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

It might be interesting to add information to the article about how ancient texts were used by today's Nobel laureate to discover a treatment for malaria.[2] TimidGuy (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. fgnievinski (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! TimidGuy (talk) 10:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This section has always troubled me. This whole section reads as if TCM is responsible for this wonderful scientific discovery, when in fact, TCM has little to do with one of the best anti-malarials that real science has produced. Something shud be dun. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 11:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Complain to the Nobel committee. fgnievinski (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's some NPOV balance

• Josh Bloom, Nobel Prize Validates Chinese Medicine? Nope., Science 20, 6 October 2015.

Keahapana (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

As a scientist working for Big Pharma, Josh Bloom's editorial is more marketing than reporting. As Dr. Tu, the recipient of the prize herself, was clear in her Nobel Prize acceptance speech that she primarily credits Chinese medicine for her achievement, it is extremely presumptuous to claim that the the life's work of a Nobel Laureate is not what she claims it to be. It is time to recognize this type of reinterpretation of facts for what it is, a bias rooted in the hubris of modernity and the prejudice of Orientalism. Relegating Tu's work to pharmacognosy is only possible if one completely ignores the fact that the plant from which artemisinin was derived is the premier herb in traditional practice for the management of malaria as well as the crucial role that the historical record played in isolating the most active compound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhardigan (talk • contribs) 10:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

This recent Australian study may also be of interest.

• Michael Bunce et al., Combined DNA, toxicological and heavy metal analyses provides an auditing toolkit to improve pharmacovigilance of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), Nature, 10 December 2015.
• Laura Gartry, Heavy metals, pharmaceuticals and endangered species DNA found in traditional Chinese medicines, research finds, ABC Australia, 10 December 2015.

Keahapana (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

This article cherry picks its references, Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch being a clear example. Wikipedians couldn't have selected a more toxic reference if they tried. To say that acupuncture and herbal medicine have been poorly researched makes a mockery not only of the millions of daily duly recorded empirical observations made by Chinese physicians over the millennia, but also of current research such as the 12,132 studies on Chinese Herbal Medicine, and 12,328 papers on acupuncture published by the US National Library of Medicine [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov] that would certainly provide a more credible and objective reference base than Stephen Barrett et al. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.207.6.83 (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia editors would be well advised to tone down their habitual vitriolic style, and inspire themselves from a proper encyclopedia such as the Encyclopedia Britannica (2015).

Here is the lead on TCM:

"System of medicine at least 23 centuries old that aims to prevent or heal disease by maintaining or restoring yinyang balance. China has one of the world's oldest medical systems. Acupuncture and Chinese herbal remedies date back at least 2,200 years, although the earliest known written record of Chinese medicine is the Huangdi Neijing (The Yellow Emperor's Classic of Internal Medicine) from the 3rd century BCE. That opus provided the theoretical concepts for TCM that remain the basis of its practice today. In essence, traditional Chinese healers seek to restore a dynamic balance between two complementary forces, yin (passive) and yang (active), which pervade the human body as they do the universe as a whole. According to TCM, a person is healthy when harmony exists between these two forces; illness, on the other hand, results from a breakdown in the equilibrium of yin and yang.

A visit to a traditional Chinese pharmacy is like a visit to a small natural history museum. The hundreds of cabinet drawers, glass cases, and jars in a typical pharmacy hold an enormous variety of desiccated plant and animal material. In 1578 Li Shizhen published his famous Bencao Gangmu (Compendium of Materia Medica), which lists 1,892 drugs and some 11,000 formal prescriptions for specific ailments."''

No attempt to dismiss the topic from the onset, and no mention of pseudoscience.

Here is the paragraph on Modern Development:

"Various Western scientific disciplines have conducted studies to learn how Chinese medicine works, but it is difficult to use a Western yardstick to measure Eastern medicine. For example, many studies on acupuncture involve research that attempts to prove that this modality can eliminate or reduce pain or alleviate certain conditions. However, this elementary approach ignores the deeper insight and experience of Chinese medicine that the human body has unlimited healing power and that the complementary energies of health and disease reflect the yinyang principle within the human body."

Genetics research and drug development

The yinyang principle can be applied to a genetic disease such as inherited breast cancer and its associated genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. According to this principle of natural law, if either of these genes is activated, somewhere in another part of the genetic code there also exists a gene to fix the action of the cancer gene, because there is an opposite energy to the one that produced the disease. There must be complementary programs running—one for developing the disease and one for healing it.

Nearly 200 modern medicines have been developed either directly or indirectly from the 7,300 species of plants used as medicines in China. For example, ephedrine, an alkaloid used in treating asthma, was first isolated from the Chinese herb mahuang. Today, scientists continue to identify compounds in Chinese herbal remedies that may be useful in the development of new therapeutic agents applicable in Western medicine. For example, an alkaloid called huperzine A was isolated from the moss Huperzia serrata, which is widely used in China to make the herbal medicine qian ceng ta. Studies suggest that this agent may compare favourably with manufactured anticholinesterase drugs such as donepezil, which are used to treat Alzheimer disease.''

The difference in style and bias is immediately obvious. The Wikipedia article on TCM is yet another attempt at disseminating biased information, and makes a mockery of its own NPOV policy. Take note and learn from the experts!

The preceding comments are completely fair and reasonable. The Traditional Chinese Medicine page lacks rigor and objectivity and should be extensively revised. TCM is endorsed by the WHO, and a quick search in the Medscape news archive displays a long list of research demonstrating the value of acupuncture. Last week the American College of Physicians included acupuncture as a recommended standard therapy for acute lower back pain. With the approval of TCM therapies by conservative and authoritative Western medical sources, pejorative entries in Wikipedia on the subject do a disservice to the integrity of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. Davidhardigan (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

CNN-article, maybe useful for something, like regulations? [3] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Traditional Chinese medicine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110314201959/http://kaleidoscope.cultural-china.com/en/118Kaleidoscope4651.html to http://kaleidoscope.cultural-china.com/en/118Kaleidoscope4651.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110314201959/http://kaleidoscope.cultural-china.com/en/118Kaleidoscope4651.html to http://kaleidoscope.cultural-china.com/en/118Kaleidoscope4651.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.jcm.co.uk/product/catalog/product/view/7937/some-acupuncture-points-which-treat-disorders-of-blood/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120522194421/http://www.acupuncture.ca.gov/pubs_forms/consumer_guide.shtml to http://www.acupuncture.ca.gov/pubs_forms/consumer_guide.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151210230847/http://www.gizikia.depkes.go.id/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2011/03/KMK-No.-1076-Th-2003-ttg-Penyelenggaraan-Pengobatan-Tradisional.pdf to http://www.gizikia.depkes.go.id/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2011/03/KMK-No.-1076-Th-2003-ttg-Penyelenggaraan-Pengobatan-Tradisional.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Traditional Chinese medicine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080314211419/http://indianmedicine.nic.in/html/ayurveda/afmain.htm to http://indianmedicine.nic.in/html/ayurveda/afmain.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718141705/http://www.yixuesheng.com/lunwen/zhongyi/zyjc/201001/5090.html to http://www.yixuesheng.com/lunwen/zhongyi/zyjc/201001/5090.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714200403/http://www.notedyy.com/news/html/?341.html to http://www.notedyy.com/news/html/?341.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161110121328/http://www.pharmnet.com.cn/tcm/knowledge/detail/100044.html to http://www.pharmnet.com.cn/tcm/knowledge/detail/100044.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/manualhealingandphysicaltouch/cupping
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121014195917/http://www.ctcma.bc.ca/about.asp to http://www.ctcma.bc.ca/about.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

An edit summary today implies there is, distinct from TCM. Wut gives? -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 19:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

See below - I've taken this into account in my objection to a piece of restored material. Edaham (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Standard American TCM practice considers lead-containing herbs obsolete.[176]
People keep adding the above sentence to the info box, featuring an image of a piece of lead used in quack medicine.
Tempted to re-revert this diff, but happy to BRD instead.

1. The article isn't about "standard american" TCM - what ever that is
2. The first source mentioned below the image, clearly demonstrates that it is being used in modern TCM
3. Other sources demonstrate that this product is still used.

The addition here hints of white-washing, definitely includes aspects of synth and is at best off-topic for the article, which doesn't specify or limit what kind of TCM it deals with.
can we please have a consensus here. Many thanks Edaham (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'd like to clarify a bit. The article does seek to describe the practice of Chinese Medicine worldwide, for example - the section on regulatory agencies in various countries. Since the 70's, it's been illegal in the USA to use products from endangered animals. Of course, the situation in mainland China is different, so it's worthwhile to describe this huge difference in industry standards, dependent on where in the world the medicine is practiced.

Here's a source from an American TCM company describing what isn't allowed in the USA (including lead). Thank you for the discussion on this.

https://www.mayway.com/pdfs/maywaymailers/Skye-Sturgeon-QM-Restricted-herbs-P1-10-2011.pdf Thorbachev (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:3O as requested here 09:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say that the article does cover TCM in other countries. However, standard american might be a misnomer. I'd say include but reword. Third opinion ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with keep but reword. It is significant that practitioners in Western countries practice in different regulatory snd cultural contexts. Herbxue (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

It's significant if there's reliable sources (MEDRS) to validate the inclusion. It's not noteworthy if unreliable, low-quality texts are being used by people promoting the subject of this article to assuage the concerns of readers who might be worried about the contents of various kinds of CAM treatments. I think this is worth an RfC as I believe that the term "Standard American TCM" is misleadingly fabricated and the information added is not particularly due in light of the fact that a number of genuinely reliable sources such as health organizations caution people as to the potentially harmful contents of the remedies, including the use of ores.

• While the FDA may have issued a ban on the use of substances it in no way precludes the possibility that these substances are still used or verifies that their use (intentional or otherwise) has been discontinued
• The fact that these standards have been added to the FDA's regulations doesn't constitute a "Standardization" of American TCM in the sense of a regulated medical practice. It merely emphasizes the fact that the people promoting it have been told to stop filling it with hazardous crap. The use of that term is therefore synth. Edaham (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I agreed that the term "standard American TCM" is not an official term, but seems to be an attempt to describe a real phenomenon. Better use of published sources would be to describe the knowledge base required for national certification (NCCAOM) or the standards of accreditation (ACAOM) used in the US. Not sure why you seem to have a bone to pick, its just simple fact that TCM practitioners in the US tend to be more risk averse than in China due to the litigious nature of the culture and an emphasis on safety concerns by the acupuncture colleges (see the Clean Needle Technique Manual published by CCAOM). Sorry if our actual practices don't fit your narrative. Herbxue (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

the "picking" going on here by me is regarding a policy our encyclopedia has of not making stuff up and the "bone" in question is a group of editors who, intent on skirting that policy, reinstated made up terms, with flimsy non-MEDRS sources, which I removed from the article. It is neither necessary or due to append disturbing information in this article with, "....but the 'Standard American version' is fine", when some modern aspect of these kinds of medicines differ from their traditional roots. Particularly not when you are a practitioner of whatever this Standard American TCM is. Edaham (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Nothing is being fabricated with this addition. American TCM schools use the Bensky Materia Medica textbook listed for the source under the lead picture. This textbook includes a category called "obsolete herbs", in which lead is included.

• The obsolete herbs category is an FYI section, similar to how psychology textbooks detail outdated therapies such as lobotomies.
• The FDA is not forcing them to write the textbook this way. Bensky is the textbook that USA herbal licensing tests are based on, so it is the current standard. Thorbachev (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the history section can be fleshed out more. There is also a Historical physicians sub-section that lists the names but not their importance. Jnhkb4 (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. It's severely lacking. I got a good textbook on Oriental Medicine History, I can use it to add some things. Thorbachev (talk) 12:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it's inaccurate to place TCM in the same group with "scientific racism" and vaccine conspiracies.

• It would make more sense to group the alternative medicines covered by health insurance, separate from the truly fringe medicine.
• So this would require two groups instead of the current one. There would be an "Alternative Medicine" series, and a "Pseudo-medicine" series. Thorbachev (talk) 10:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Why should we use the health insurance companies' decision to cover something or not as a criterion? At the moment, we use the scientific evidence. Health insurance companies use that too, but they also have financial reasons. We don't. So, why should we follow them? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a great question actually. This criterion about insurance coverage makes for a huge distinction among the many different therapies in this series. With this, the different topics split perfectly into two groups: One that appears valid enough to pay for. And the other that is bogus. Most research in medicine is based on trends and patterns over time, that aren't completely understood. Thus, Western Medicine is not a true science. It's an applied science, like engineering. But that's OK because healthcare has to be pragmatic, it's about results, rather than a perfect scientific understanding. So the money goes where the data shows that the healthcare has some validity. So why should Chiropractic be held in the same regard as Orgone? The current series is missing an interpretation of additional relevant information. Thank you. Thorbachev (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

You write: "So the money goes where the data shows that the healthcare has some validity." To some degree that's true, but insurance companies also seek to meet the demands made by their policyholders. They are willing to pay for the premiums, so the insurance company makes more money, regardless of true efficacy.

Chiropractic is in a class of its own because of its extremely strong lobbying. They have successfully pressured Congress to pass laws giving them authorization, thus bypassing traditional acceptance by other health care professions. Thus they exist in a parallel universe, and are not really part of mainstream healthcare. Medicare law for chiropractic recognizes a fictive lesion as the basis for billing! See vertebral subluxation. That is the foundation of chiropractic. That happened because of pressure on Congress, not because of scientific efficacy or evidence. Money and politics talk. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 08:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

You are trying to replace a clear direct criterion - scientific validity - with a secondary criterion that is related to it but is tainted by other effects beside what really matters. Bad idea. Science is already about "results". If it were true that "the money goes where the data shows", we could use either - except we are not allowed WP:OR. But, as BullRangifer explains above, the money has other forces pulling on it. Therefore, the OR is not just forbidden but also wrong. The direct criterion is the one we will use. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Another issue, it seems these therapies are somewhat arbitrarily decided whether they are pseudo or alternative. So the pseudo-medicine banner shows Chiropractic, but not massage therapy, though it shows NCCIH manipulative therapies. Yet, if we click "manipulative therapies", we see a list of chiropractic and massage therapy together. Then if you click on "massage therapy" it redirects to "massage" with a banner saying it is "complementary and alternative medicine", with no mention of pseudo-medicine. The problem with the "pseudo" label is its inconsistent use. Thorbachev (talk) 11:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Some massage practices are pseudo-medicine, containing bullshit concepts, others are not. The inconsistency is not a problem for the pseudo-medicine label but for the Massage article, because it is a generic term containing various practices, some of which are in the cat and some of which are not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a fair and common understanding of massage. So it would make sense to have some link to massage in the "Alternative and pseudo-medicine" banner. I would suggest adding "aspects of massage" to the "fringe medicine and science" section of the series banner, and then link that to the massage article. Otherwise Wikipedia favors massage over other alternative therapies, while overlooking pseudo-science based massage. Thorbachev (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I am a student of TCM, and I feel that in this situation we should capitalize Medicine here, because Traditional Chinese Medicine is a specific field, where Traditional Chinese medicine may be more general (and I would be unsure about capitalizing Traditional in that case). Koabal85 (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll make the edit. Thorbachev (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I can't figure out how to change the page title, so I'll just leave it for now. Thorbachev (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The only way to change a page title is to move the page, which might need discussion in this case. See Move a Page.ch (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

A small m says: "This is medicine, and it is Traditional Chinese". A capital M says: this is called "TCM", and makes no further assumptions. Since it is doubtful whether it is really medicine, the M should be capitalized. Also, it is "TCM" and not "TCm". --Hob Gadling (talk)

Hello, I've added a source about research into biochemical effects of acupuncture. Personally, I think the source is MEDRS, but I'd like to focus on why I believe it is an appropriate addition. The introduction currently has an unbalanced negative stance on Chinese Medicine. We need to add counterpoints, to make it NPOV. The reality is more nuanced than simply stating "there is no evidence for the existence of meridians." There is a lot of information that would say otherwise. The intro should reflect this. Thorbachev (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Thorbachev, the source you tried to use fails WP:MEDRS on a number of counts. First off, it appears to be a primary source - it's a research paper. MEDRS requires secondary sources - reviews, meta-analyses, etc. Also, it's about a study in rabbits, not people, so you couldn't draw conclusions about people from it. Furthermore, while I haven't looked into the journal itself, I would not be surprised to find that it fails on its reliability. For these reasons, I am very confident that it fails MEDRS.

On the question of NPOV, Wikipedia does not seek to achieve balance by making sure that all sides of an argument are presented; rather, we seek to ensure that we faithfully reflect what mainstream science says about a topic. If mainstream medical science says that there is no evidence for meridians, then that is what Wikipedia must say. If mainstream medical science takes TCM ideas seriously, it should be possible for you to find some discussion of them in mainstream medical science journals - anything you find could certainly be included here.

Finally, when adding material to the lead, remember what the lead is there to do - it summarises the rest of the article. You can't add stuff to the lead that isn't in the body of the text, and you need to remember that it is a summary of the key points. The lead of this article is a few sentences long, and its job is to summarise everything Wikipedia has to say about TCM. A single primary research paper on acupuncture in rabbits, published in a low-impact, fringe journal, just isn't significant enough to discuss in the lead. Girth Summit (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Girth Summit, I can certainly find mainstream journals which take TCM ideas seriously, but these articles tend to require purchase. I'll see if I can eventually gain access to these articles at a library.

I agree that Wikipedia should be reflecting mainstream science. But, currently this article is relying heavily on editorials that are too quick to dismiss the anatomical and physiological data that appear to match up with meridians and acupuncture points. For instance, at the bottom of this article, we have a note stating that there is "not a shred of evidence" for the existence of meridians, even though it's easy to find meridian patterns in embryo-developmental stages of humans. (There's certainly a lot of "shreds") The editorials we are currently citing, are ignoring plausible theories rather than addressing them, because they can't see past the fact that meridians are in ancient texts. The Wikipedia article is asserting that there has been extensive research, resulting in zero evidence, but this verdict is just someone's opinion.

If I find suitable sources in regard to meridians research, where do you suggest I add them? Thanks. Thorbachev (talk) 04:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

If you found some good MEDRS sources for the existence of meridians, I expect they would want to be discussed in the section on 'model of the body'. They'd also need to go into the main article on 'TCM model of the body', as well as the main articles on 'Meridians', 'Qi' etc. HOWEVER - I would strongly advise you to bring the articles to the talk page for discussion before inserting them anywhere in order to get a consensus. It would be an extraordinary turn-around in many people's understanding if you were able to unearth any MEDRS-compliant sources evidencing meridians, and you should ensure that we all agree it meets the necessary quality bar before proceeding.Girth Summit (talk) 06:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Thorbachev (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

There are two ways that people can describe that Chinese Medicine has unscientific components.

• One way - the NPOV way, is a statement like "Yin and Yang ideas are unfalsifiable, and as such cannot be considered scientific."
• The biased non-NPOV way, is a statement like "Chinese Medicine has no evidence at all" or "there is no logical mechanism of action."

• I'm identifying these as non-NPOV since they attempt to make a blanket definitive statement, falsely claiming there is nothing to identify or measure in research.
• I'm taking issue, for now, with two sources -
• First, The Nature editorial (which doesn't even have a named author) states "the most obvious reason why it hasn't delivered many cures is that the majority of its treatments have no logical mechanism of action."

• The Nature editorial line is a baseless opinion, ignoring the fact that acupuncture needles cause a measurable neurotransmitter release, which provides the possibility of a logical mechanism of action.

• Second, the Singh 2008 article claims "scientists are still unable to find a shred of evidence."

• The Singh 2008 article ignores the embryologically based theories for meridians. For example, the mesonephric ducts in a 25 day old human embryo fit the pattern of acupuncture points of the urinary bladder channel. So there's your "shred" of evidence.

• The excerpts from the Nature editorial and Singh 2008 are worded as propaganda, rather than prudent scientific analysis. The assumptive statements are presented in the Wikipedia page as if they were fact, causing misinformation, and therefore these statements should be either removed or reworded.
• An NPOV reword would be something like "inconclusive mechanism of action" and "inconclusive evidence for meridians." However the current wordings are essentially verbatim from the sources, so it would be better to remove the statements entirely and replace them with sources that are capable of criticizing Chinese Medicine in proper scientific language.Thorbachev (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

You appear to be working from the assumption that TCM is not based upon pseudoscience and fringe theories. --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

TCM is based on Daoist concepts, which are of course, unscientific, as they are untestable, like with any religion. Personally, I don't think it's accurate to call Daoist ideas, like yin-yang or five elements, pseudoscience, when they are not pretending to be science - they are just metaphors. It's more accurate to call them unscientific. The situation with TCM becomes more complicated when we take into account, that over time (1000's of years) scientifically testable treatments have been added to the knowledge base of TCM - such things like needling to drain cysts, or anesthesia by opium or cannabis, (the list goes on). Other aspects of TCM became more physically outlined, when human dissection was allowed by governments in Greater China. Nowadays within TCM research, there is plenty of room for testing specific treatments, like how acupuncture affects hormone release, blood flow in the brain, etc. But, a lot of good research gets ignored because editorial authors aren't willing to look past the Daoist components of TCM. So, when making final judgments on a specific TCM therapy, saying that yin and yang aren't scientific, is not a good enough reason to discredit a specific therapy. Conclusions should be based on the experiments, and then meta-analyses. I'm aware there is a common complaint of poor-quality research in Asia, but that's a separate issue. I'm just focusing on the trend of editorials saying TCM definitely doesn't work, because of the pseudoscience argument, when the reality is that a lot of the testable parts of TCM, haven't actually been tested yet. Thorbachev (talk) 05:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's discuss this: The way the Wikipedia intro words the information in the editorial, makes it sound like the Nature article is talking about TCM as a whole, when it is really talking about herbs. When the source text says "traditional Chinese medicine(s)," the context is clearly Chinese Herbology. It seems the editorial author chose this wording because of how some prefer to say "medicinal", in place of "herb," because a lot of Chinese "herbs" are not plant-based.

Current text in the Wikipedia page:
"Pharmaceutical research has explored the potential for creating new drugs from traditional remedies, with few successful results.[15] A Nature editorial described TCM as "fraught with pseudoscience", and said that the most obvious reason it hasn't delivered many cures is that the majority of its treatments have no logical mechanism of action.[15] Proponents propose that research has so far missed key features of the art of TCM, such as unknown interactions between various ingredients and complex interactive biological systems.[15]"

Why this article is talking about Chinese Herbology, rather than TCM as a whole.

• 2nd paragraph "...the prospect that the nation's traditional medicine might contain a number of potentially profitable compounds hidden somewhere in its arcane array of potions and herbal mixtures."
• 3rd paragraph "Sometimes this has been successful: artemisinin, for example, which is currently the most effective treatment for malaria, was fished out of a herbal treatment for fevers. "
• 5th paragraph "...the US Food and Drug Administration issued new guidelines on botanical drugs that made it much easier to get extracts into clinical trials if there was some history of prior use, and that obviated the need to characterize all compounds in an extract."

The context of the editorial should be made clear in the Wikipedia article, so I changed "TCM" to "Chinese Herbology", but that was reverted. "Chinese Herbology" makes especially more sense, in the third sentence, talking about "various ingredients". I'm open to discussion. Thorbachev (talk) 07:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The Nature reference has "traditional Chinese medicine" in its subheading and uses that term an additional three times; it does not say "Chinese herbology". Interpreting the reference as really being about Chinese herbology is known as original research and is not permitted. Johnuniq (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I reverted the edit concerned, with an informative edsum that shouldn't have to be explained again, but I will anyway. The reference informing that section does not mention "Chinese Herbology" but uses the phrase "Traditional Chinese Medicine" which is, astonishingly, what this article is about. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

We still don't know exactly who wrote that flippant editorial, which we are accepting as MEDRS because the majority of editors like the pejorative "pseudoscience".Herbxue (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Bollocks Herb, that's a bad faith accusation. I've corrected your formatting and note that you have been here long enough to know better. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 15:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Alright, it doesn't seem likely we'll come to agreement on this. I'll just let it be. I am aware that the article does not specifically say "Chinese herbology", but my suggested wording is not original research.

• "traditional Chinese medicine" and "TCM" mean two different things, dependent on capitalization:

• the substances (herbs and such) known as traditional Chinese medicine
• or the field of study, known as Traditional Chinese Medicine

• Here we are currently using "TCM", which implies the field of study. The abbreviation is not used in the editorial - only the uncapitalized "traditional Chinese medicine" is used. The current Wikipedia wording connotes the field of study. At the risk of sounding nitpicky... I feel it's a decent point, given the multiple-meanings issue.Thorbachev (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be pedantic, but do you have a reliable and widely-known source for your two definitions above? I appreciate that it's possible for you or me to infer a subtle difference of meaning depending on whether or not its capitalised, but whether the author meant to imply that meaning is another matter. If you can't demonstrate that is a widely accepted distinction then we cannot assume that the Nature editorial is written in adherence to the two definitions you've outlined. As far as I can tell, Nature as a publication doesn't see a distinction between TCM and tCm. Girth Summit (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318812480_Demystifying_traditional_herbal_medicine_with_modern_approach

I would like to add a citation to this Nature article published in 2017 that summarizes the abstract (see below). The authors are from the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in association with MIT.

"Plants have long been recognized for their therapeutic properties. For centuries, indigenous cultures around the world have used traditional herbal medicine to treat a myriad of maladies. By contrast, the rise of the modern pharmaceutical industry in the past century has been based on exploiting individual active compounds with precise modes of action. This surge has yielded highly effective drugs that are widely used in the clinic, including many plant natural products and analogues derived from these products, but has fallen short of delivering effective cures for complex human diseases with complicated causes, such as cancer, diabetes, autoimmune disorders and degenerative diseases. While the plant kingdom continues to serve as an important source for chemical entities supporting drug discovery, the rich traditions of herbal medicine developed by trial and error on human subjects over thousands of years contain invaluable biomedical information just waiting to be uncovered using modern scientific approaches. Here we provide an evolutionary and historical perspective on why plants are of particular significance as medicines for humans. We highlight several plant natural products that are either in the clinic or currently under active research and clinical development, with particular emphasis on their mechanisms of action. Recent efforts in developing modern multi-herb prescriptions through rigorous molecular-level investigations and standardized clinical trials are also discussed. Emerging technologies, such as genomics and synthetic biology, are enabling new ways for discovering and utilizing the medicinal properties of plants. We are entering an exciting era where the ancient wisdom distilled into the world’s traditional herbal medicines can be reinterpreted and exploited through the lens of modern science."

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. CareLvb (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Carelvb

Nature Plants is not Nature. PUBMED classifies this particular article as a "historical article" and from skimming it, it indeed looks like bits of it may be useful for adding historical content to several WP articles. Also see WP:NOABSTRACT. Alexbrn (talk) 07:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

There is an RfC relevant to this topic at - the COI noticeboardMorgan Leigh | Talk 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The World Health Organization Gives the Nod to Traditional Chinese Medicine. Bad Idea. The World Health Organization is now promoting unproved traditional Chinese medicine. By THE EDITORS, Scientific American, April 2019 Issue

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

If it is a realiable source, then the WTO's decision should be methioned in the article. I think "history" section is approciate. Mariogoods (talk) 05:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

CNN on same: Chinese medicine gains WHO acceptance but it has many critics. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The lead is presently dwelling heavily on the lack of scientific support for the notions behind TCM, and for its efficacy. The prominence of this material in the lead strongly implies a WP:FRINGE/WP:MEDRS-solid entire section about this, but it is absent. We either need that in this article, or a well-sourced split-off article. 50.78.103.6 (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

There needs to be a section that addresses the fact that TCM is driving some animals to extinction. The demand for bear bile, rhinoceros horn, and many, many other wild animal products is causing a negative impact on these populations. The fact that China now has a burgeoning middle class that can more easily afford these products just makes the matter worse. The demand is much greater than it used to be. You can't have a discussion of TCM and fail to mention this obvious problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.89.132 (talk) 09:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you read the whole article? These issues you raised are covered in some depth in the Herbal Medicine - Raw Materials - Animal Substances, across several paragraphs that specifically mention bear bile and rhinoceros horn amongst other species, giving figures on population decline etc. I personally think that it is covered in sufficient depth for the scope of the article, but I'm sure there's more that could be said. Read that section and see what you think. Girth Summit (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the material is there, but it's buried. A glance at the table of contents will not give the impression to any reader that this is an issue. There needs to be a section on ecological implications specifically.--ChippahDippah (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Traditional Chinese medicine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the section entitled "Philosophical Background", under the subtitle "Yin and Yang" there is the following:

Yang vacuity (also termed "vacuity-heat"): heat sensations, possible sweating at night, insomnia, dry pharynx, dry mouth, dark urine, and a "fine" and rapid pulse.[40] Yin vacuity ("vacuity-cold"): aversion to cold, cold limbs, bright white complexion, long voidings of clear urine, diarrhea, pale and enlarged tongue, and a slightly weak, slow and fine pulse.[39]

Please change "Yang vacuity" to "Yin vacuity" and "Yang vacuity" to "Yin vacuity" - at present they are the wrong way around Jameshill008 (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 18:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The first section "Medical development" seems to have nothing to do with 'Traditional Chinese medicine". It was added by a user who has had most of his/her other edits removed for being less than helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.187.10 (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree, have removed. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

This section seems copied and pasted from a book that it cited (without a title). I wasnt able to access the book because all the links were spam. This is mostly thoughts of one doctor. The Yin Yang and Gender section looks OK though. This article as a whole has significant overlap between the sections and might need to be reorganized. Jlf3756 (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the part about pseudoscience should stay because the article is part of a series on. Discuss your edits here so they are not continually reverted and the page becomes protected. Jlf3756 (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The 2nd paragraph is repetitive and I wish to remove about 1/3 of the content. See my edit that was reverted on 4/15. Also, the sentence that starts "A nature editorial described TCM..." is duplicated. Zefr, can you elaborate on why you think it should stay? I think it belongs in the first paragraph, not the 2nd.Jlf3756 (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Jlf3756 - you can edit further, but I made this revision to clean up a mess in the lede. We should follow WP:LEAD for any content to be added to the introduction. Zefr (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Traditional Chinese medicine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please either change the title of this topic to 'CLASSICAL CHINESE MEDICINE', or change the content completely. The historical information in this article is incorrect. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) was created in the 1950's under the communist party. TCM was created to 'fuse' it with the western world and many of the mentioned aspects of the classical practice of medicine (Yin/Yang, 5 Elements and all the ancient historical references) have been either adulterated or removed from the learning and practice of TCM. Classical Chinese Medicine is the ancient and historical practice of Chinese Medicine, which this article is mostly about. This article confuses the two and is therefore incorrect. 92.211.57.142 (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

No. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Why not, Roxy, the dog. ? Zezen (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it's better to discuss on the page when it changed over, what was changed, and the difference between CCM and TCM? I'm very curious about that. The Crisses (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia entry: Artemisinin (/ˌɑːtɪˈmiːsɪnɪn/) and its semisynthetic derivatives are a group of drugs used against malaria due to Plasmodium falciparum.[1] It was discovered in 1972 by Tu Youyou, who was co-recipient of the 2015 Nobel Prize in Medicine for her discovery.[2] Treatments containing an artemisinin derivative (artemisinin-combination therapies, ACTs) are now standard treatment worldwide for P. falciparum malaria[citation needed]. Artemisinin is isolated from the plant Artemisia annua, sweet wormwood, a herb employed in Chinese traditional medicine. Bufb (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

In New Zealand the practice of Acuncture is ACC accredited. Shenqijing (talk) 11:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I’m concerned that the entire section on critiques refers to scientific evidence and clinical trials as if 1) there’s one form of science when there’s a multitude of scientific perspective 2) there isn’t high stakes for euro white western practitioners invalidating alternative medicines 3) as if racism doesn’t play a huge role in how traditional Chinese medicine has been perceived in the us and western world 4) a huge part of Chinese medicine is around the idea that the body requires balancing and each body is different. There isn’t one right answer for every single condition because for many conditions -the root isn’t the same. There’s a difference between treating a broken arm with certain common methods and addressing something like back pain. Back pain isn’t going typically have the same cause in most people

Without acknowledging these it erases a lot Kizemet (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Kizemet:, please read WP:FORUM. If you are proposing a change to the article, please specify what it is and what sources you are citing to backup that change. Thanks. --McSly (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a very waited article, the citation from nature magazine is not a very good example. Because there are reports that they are no longer a critical source due to baise on climate change. Shenqijing (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The real Science behind this modality and not it's form is what is now being presented as new modern mindset in science. The mindset is a inductive Geocentric science like Geology. This is why it is now up being taught as new integrative ecology in higher education institutions. Here in Melbourne Confucian classes and TCM are being taught at the University of Melbourne. This is why the WHO introduced this modality. Prevention( Chinese Medicine) is better than the Cure (Occidental Medicine). Even this is not explicit enough. Inductive= Chinese Medicine. Deductive = Occidental. Shenqijing (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

. The real Science behind this modality and not it's form but it's mindset, it is now being presented as a new modern mindset in science. The mindset is a inductive Geocentric science like Geology so is about Human beings and the relationship with Nature, ecology phisical emotional and spiritual health perfect for a Enviroment reboot. This is why it is now being taught as new integrative ecology in higher education institutions. Here in Melbourne Confucian classes and TCM are being taught at the University of Melbourne. This is why the WHO introduced this modality. Prevention ( Chinese Medicine) is better than the Cure (Occidental Medicine) as we have seen with the recent events. Even this is not explicit enough. Inductive= Chinese Medicine. Deductive = Occidental. We need to work on this page. As Chinese medicine is very broad and has influenced many cultures India, Greece and Rome for pulse blood pressure technology. Japanese medicine is based on Chinese Medicine as their information comes from Chinese text, as does their formative written language Kanji. This is just another example of another very refined cultural use of this model. The mindset is in Confucian, Taoist and Buddhism, Shinto and and and. Shenqijing (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The cited publication is seen to be a less than critical source to date by many non basis Scientific community members. The article is about donkey health more than TCM. There are many unethical practices that we could discuss from both TCM and Occidental Medicine. Shenqijing (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zezen Shenqijing (talk) 12:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

As above, please see WP:NOTFORUM. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is the addition, "TCM Recently has been added by the World Health Organisation to the global diagnostic compendium making this medicine more accessible and affordable to many people in need of alternative health care around the world and on the same token, has been described as "fraught with pseudoscience", and the majority of its treatments as having no logical mechanism of action.[2] by many occidental eurocentric thinking medical practitioners and supporters. The reference is within the same article from Nature Magazine, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01726-1 "Traditional therapies have been included in a global diagnostic compendium" I have run out of time to add the citation will add to it tomorrow. Or if someone can help and finish it of that would be great. Shenqijing (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Shenqijing, as promised, I'm going to explain why I reverted this. There are several problems with it, so in no particular order:

• It has no business being in the lead of the article, unless it is summarising content in an appropriate section of the body of the article.
• MOS:RECENTLY
• The source supports very little of this content. Nowhere does the source assert anything along the lines of "by adding TCM to its compendium, the WHO is making this medicine more accessible and affordable to many people in need of alternative health care around the world". Nowhere does this source refer to "many occidental eurocentric thinking medical practitioners and supporters" - there is nothing along those lines. You have made almost all of this content up out of whole cloth, ignoring the tone and content of the source and building your own analysis around it - we call that OR.
• The source in question is clearly critical of the WHO's action. I would not necessarily be averse to mentioning the WHO's action here - for it to have garnered the attention of a Nature editorial, it would not be UNDUE; however, if the content is supported by this source, it needs to reflect the source fairly. It could, for example, be used to support a statement along the lines of "An editorial in Nature criticised the WHO for including TCM in its global diagnostic compendium, on the grounds of..." - that might work. To include the fact that they included TCM, and to leave out the criticism, misrepresents the source.
• The one point where I agree with you is that we seem to be WP:DUPLINKing to pseudoscience - I'd support the removal of all but the first of these links, or at the most we should have one in the lead and one in the body of the text in the relevant section. At the moment there are two in a single section which is overkill. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou, there was three links in the text until I deleted one of them last night. I will find the editorial that states the World Heath's reasoning for TCM Inclusion, I think it is on par with what I have implied. As for the original reactionary comment from Nature Magazine, you are right in saying that it should stay in the lead and as you can see from my reverted edit I had still left that as it was, but also I think that TCM's inclusion into the global diagnostic compendium should be represented in the light that it was granted it's inclusion by a World authority for health and "human rights" organisation, to tone down the naritave on this page. Their is a very substantial Critique section given pride of place in this article that needs to be moved down to an appropriate place under regulations, I will have a look at it, we have more eddtitors comming to have a look at this page.last but not least the addition of Eurocentric thinking is not a insult but a observation, When Medicine is defined by Western instead of Occidental is a reflection of this. My training in structural Medicine was European as it was in German. Thankyou Shenqijing (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Shenqijing, what do you mean when you say 'We have more editors coming to look at this page? GirthSummit _(blether) 04:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

There are other editors with a better still set than myself, that know the system. Impartial and can add some of their valuable experience and expertise to offer suggestions to improve the page for the end users experience. Untill then I will try to work through this with you and the other eddtitors on the page. Amituofo 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Shenqijing (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Shenqijing, who are these editors, and how do you know that they are going to come to this article? GirthSummit _(blether) 06:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am trying to get a impartial opinion and seeing how to get someone with experience to come and mediate this page, before I do this I am looking at Wikipedia process to make sure that it is within the guidelines. I feel that there is a narrative on this page that needs to be balanced that is all. At no stage have I deleted the inclusion of the statement from Nature Magazine only included it's subject and why it was added to the Global Diagnostic Compendium,(ICD) by the World Health Organisation, please see this reference, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06782-7 Here is the citation from the document, "WHO has been avidly supporting traditional medicines, above all TCM, as a step towards its long-term goal of universal health care. According to the agency, traditional treatments are less costly and more accessible than Western medicine in some countries" and here is my eddits including the original Wikipedia article text, "TCM Recently has been added by the World Health Organisation to the global diagnostic compendium making this medicine more accessible and affordable to many people in need of alternative health care around the world. On the same token, it has been described as "fraught with pseudoscience", and the majority of its treatments as having no logical mechanism of action.[2] by many occidental eurocentric thinking medical practitioners and supporters". As you can see that the only thing that I am guilty of is pointing out how the article had three links to Pseudoscience enforcing a unbalanced narrative 2. requesting that the Critique section be moved to a more appropriate position rather than being in pole position in reference. 3, also adding a link for Chinese food therapy that was counted as a revert, 4 recording major edditing on the talk page, sumerising the article that I have supplied a link to, 4, telling the truth and being told that I have a extreme view and what I had to say was not well written, If you look at the history of the page one revert is actually the addition of the link to the Chinese food therapy wiki page. There was also another editor coming on to the page and rivirting the page without talking on the page. Have a look at the Talk on the page.

I would like to say that it is not hard in this case to look biased in this case and that I am not, as to bring Ballance back to this article I need to lean heavily to the opposite side to straighten it up to make it True. Amituofo🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Shenqijing (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Please respond to the question that you have been directly asked above about the other editors you said were going to come to this article. You have been asked the same question at Arbitration Enforcement, it would be in your interests to provide a timely response. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I was looking to get other eddtitors here that could look at this page, as I see the balance of this page heavily listing to one side.it needs to present in my opinion information that supports the pros and cons of this subject so there can be critical thinking from the reader. I have been looking at the Wikipedia guidlines of how to get other opinions and input to improve this article. That is all. I hope that this clears up your question. Amituofo 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Shenqijing (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, I am another editor and I have looked at this page. The page is not broken and does not need to be fixed. You are POV-pushing pseudoscience and you are edit warring, and I see that you were just blocked -- again. You have been warned multiple times. The next time you are likely to be blocked indefinitely. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The heading of "Critique" and a "pseudoscience" section, normally to be fair these two sections should be together instead of apart, I am trying to find another Wikipedia page that does this and I can't, can someone explain or direct me to another example please?. Shenqijing (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Not done Proposed definition is pseudoscientific babble from one source. We need to be using other independent secondary sources as the basis of the article also. Shenqijing (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello we need to include in the lead please that TCM has been added to the Global Diagnostic Compendium,(ICD) by the World Health Organisation, please see this reference, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06782-7 Here is the citation from the document, "WHO has been avidly supporting traditional medicines, above all TCM, as a step towards its long-term goal of universal health care. According to the agency, traditional treatments are less costly and more accessible than Western medicine in some countries" Shenqijing (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I have added content to the lead, including a reference and citation to a article from Nature Magazine. Including the exact statement and wording from the WHO and a explanation for their endorsement of Traditional Medicine. Shenqijing (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Here is a example of another Wikipedia page on traditional medicine similar lead but not seven or more references to Pseudoscience also not a specific category for Critique or another sub heading devoted to the model of the body and Pseudoscience.

Here is the article thankyou 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda Shenqijing (talk) 06:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

This section needs to be removed as it is repeated information from the Critique section including links to pseudoscience, read's as follows "It has been described as "fraught with pseudoscience", and the majority of its treatments as having no logical mechanism of action.[2]" We need to also include from the same article that Traditional Chinese medicine has been added to global diagnostic compendium by WHO and what that means for TCM. Also move the Critique section to the bottom of the page maybe just under notes, as I have said that it is in line with the lay out of other Wikipedia articles. Thankyou. Shenqijing (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the body text. We are required by Policy and Guidelines to summarise the most significant points from body text in the lead. This text is in my opinion very significant as it is one of the most important things about TCM, and should be highlighted in the lead. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Your opinion, this article needs to be objective not subjective, the Critique section is relivent and that is where this information should be. In the lead it is clumsy. The same article also highlights how TCM has been included Shenqijing (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

No, not opinion Wikipedia Policy. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

In the global diagnostic compendium and that also needs to be added also. Shenqijing (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I dont understand your last comment. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The statement from Nature Magazine only included a objection not the subject and that is why it was added to the Global Diagnostic Compendium,(ICD) by the World Health Organisation, please see this reference, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06782-7 Here is the citation from the document, "WHO has been avidly supporting traditional medicines, above all TCM, as a step towards its long-term goal of universal health care. According to the agency, traditional treatments are less costly and more accessible than Western medicine in some countries" and here is my eddit to the lead of this article including the original Wikipedia article text, "TCM Recently has been added by the World Health Organisation to the global diagnostic compendium making this medicine more accessible and affordable to many people in need of alternative health care around the world. On the same token, it has been described as "fraught with pseudoscience", and the majority of its treatments as having no logical mechanism of action.[2] by many occidental eurocentric thinking medical practitioners and supporters". Amituofo 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Shenqijing (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Is the above statement supposed to be an answer to my last comment? If so, it does not explain why "In the global diagnostic compendium and that also needs to be added also." You have not shown us why wikipolicy says we should include that meaningless statement you find so important? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, I actually think this might be worth covering, if Nature are writing editorials about it's probably not UNDUE. We would of course need to give it appropriate context, explaining what it means and how it was received. Would be interested to know others' views on this. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that making an inneffective and fraudulent system of medicine more easily available to people with no or little access to real medicine is something that should be thought of as "a good thing" !! -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, no of course not, but if the WHO have put it into their compendium thingy, and secondary sources have covered them doing so, we probably ought to mention that - alongside the reaction from the scientific community of course. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Nobody has shown the importance of this "compendium" or the relavence to TCM or real medicine. our SPA has just tried again, quoting you as justification, but This thread does not support inclusion, yet. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 10:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I see that Zefr has made some additions to the article that mention the compendium, and put it into what I believe to be appropriate context. I support the changes that they have made - courtesy ping to Roxy the dog and Guy Macon in case you want to review and comment. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I saw that Zefr had made an edit, read the edsum, and saw no further need to validate. Now that I have, I see that I was correct. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 20:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I wish to move the Critique section to the bottom of the page just under the notes section. So it is in line with other Wikimedia page formats. If I do not here back from anyone I will just go ahead and move it to where it should be. Thankyou Shenqijing (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Leave it alone, it is fine. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

It does seem strange to me compared to other articles. According to this policy: "The usual practice is to name and order sections based on the precedent of similar articles. Contributors should follow the consensus model to establish an order." Other articles about fringe/unscientific theories like New World Order (conspiracy theory) like to put the criticism at the bottom; others such as Gasoline pill devote multiple sections to criticism or weave in the consensus throughout its statements. Because it would be unnecessary to write "this contradicts medical fact X established by science" next to every claim of traditional Chinese medicine, a specialized criticism section is needed; also, less important criticisms like "It endangers tigers" aren't the most important issues and don't need to be in the first section. My suggestion is to write a paragraph in the lead saying TCM is not rooted in science (more elaborate of course) and leave more detailed/niche criticism at the bottom. Wikinights (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I was pointed to a section on talk page that did not exist so I have made one now. Do you want to discuss you second change now Zefr. It did not seem to be advantageous to me but perhaps you have a good reason. First you removed the seperation between its practice in the Sinosphere and the rest of the world. There is obviously a large difference in the rates of use so that was not an improvement. You put in wikipedias voice that it is based off of thousands of years of medical practice when in the body it is clear that is based on a 1950's stadardization. So also not an improvment.AlmostFrancis (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It's clear enough right above this topic section, as stated in the edit summary. This comment you make is nonsensical gibberish, and your revert of an edit containing relevant new publications is not supported by any reliable WP:RS in the article. Zefr (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Did you not realize you had changed more than just the WHO content, which I have added back under the regulation section? You also changed the lead and removed content in the body. Did you not change content around the Sinosphere? Did you not also remove "The effectiveness of Chinese herbal medicine remains poorly researched and supported, and most of its treatments have no logical [[mechanism of action]" Do you not agree you changed a claim about TCM origins to a statement of fact?AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

As for my revision of the content discussed above, if you take a look at the diff of the edit that content does not show up as a change. No idea why, which is why when I figured that out I added back that content. The rest of the changes however I do not see as a necessary improvement.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

This was my revision of the lede which included a 2019 EAS position statement and two publications in Nature from 2018-19. You wrote over that using the previous tourism websites which do not meet WP:RS for lede content. Two other editors (above under the "Removal..." topic) agreed with my revision, indicating development of consensus; no consensus has been provided for your revision. You can express your opinion of "no improvement", but three editors disagree. Re-establishing the revised version until consensus for your (the prior version, containing unusable references in the lede) is established. Zefr (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I haven't checked every single before and after source, but my view remains that Zefr's edits were an improvement - it seemed to me that the sourcing was better afterwards, and that there was some important new content that was handled appropriately. I'd be open to discussion of any specific concerns, but I think wholesale reversal would be counterproductive. GirthSummit _(blether) 05:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The wholesale revert was based on what looks like a bug to me in the diff functionality, or is just me not knowing how to read diffs. If you look at the Diff the content on the 2019 WHO change is not highlighted as being removed. This is why I added the content back in the regulation section. I thought the critiques section should be used for critiques of TCM itself and not a critique of a regulation change involving TCM, also since the change hasn't even gone into affect yet it wasn't important enough to be so highly placed. As to why I reverted the change that was viewable. It made the claim of TCM being based off of 23 centuries of knowledge and practice in wikipedias voice. Since from the body we know that modern TCM is actually based off of a systematized from created in the 1950's I though the change was ill advised and the claim should be moved back out of wikipedias voice.AlmostFrancis (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Second the change moved the content "The effectiveness of Chinese herbal medicine remains poorly researched and supported, and most of its treatments have no logical mechanism of action" below and in the same paragraph as the content on the WHO change. This made it appear that the critique was related to the new WHO guideline. I disagreed and believed it should stay in the paragraph on evidence base of TCM as it is part and parcel of that generalized critique. I feel like this would have gone a lot better with smaller better explained changes.AlmostFrancis (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I am missing the (TCM or otherwise) elephant here.

TCM, its political promotion (allegedly, also by the WHO and Western press) and the belief in its efficacy kill. See e.g. the trade in pangolins: https://www.traffic.org/publications/reports/the-global-trafficking-of-pangolins/ the elephant tusks, etc. for starters. Why is there no section about such disastrous (un?)intended consequencies here?

The hidden "There are some concerns over illegal trade and transport of endangered species including rhinoceroses and tigers,..." does not cut it, as it is not made into a full Section.

If you do not care about nature, but more about "4 Gender in traditional medicine 5 Clinical encounters with women..." then think e.g. about the resulting pandemics and its impact on people.

I am risking allegations of heavy POV here. But this elephant is too large and the ommission too glaring. Zezen (talk) 08:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

It also saves lives though— plenty of pieces of traditional western medicine kills too. Are you advocating to place that in a section for western medicine? Kizemet (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree with Zezen. TCM has an enormous toll on the Animal Kingdom --- annually. All forms of 'Medicine' should equally have their consequences for others noted.

I'm not particularly persuaded TCM does save lives, not more than simply waiting and resting for many maladies, but whether it does or not that is no reason at all to ignore environmental consequences. Analogous to ignoring the Third World consequences in manufacturing smartphones for both the West and the East. Claverhouse (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)