Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine

This page is scientifically inaccurate and negatively biased

Wow! Quite apart from the overall racist tone, this page is objectively inaccurate and misleading. There is a LOT of reliable evidence about various TCM mechanisms of action, readily available on google scholar. Much of the research relates to areas of medical science that are relatively new to western understanding eg inflammatory responses, the HPA axis, the nervous system, the microbiome/s and how all of these systems talk to each other. The sources cited here are outdated and mostly disproven - the critique uses sources from 2008 to justify the bulk of the argument (back when we were still using flip phones). It’s very sad that wiki has such a poor quality page for TCM, it’s an incredibly interesting field both scientifically and culturally. It’s also potentially turning people away from using potentially effective TCM treatments for conditions that are difficult to treat otherwise, like chronic pain disorders This really needs to be fixed. 49.185.83.184 (talk) 06:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows reliable sources and for biomedical claims needs WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 06:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Kowtowing to WP:BESTSOURCES is not racism. You don't get away with pushing quackery at Wikipedia just because you accuse Wikipedians of racism. WP:NOTDUMB.

There will always be crappy papers which have not been debunked yet. Mainly because a lot of papers are simply ignored by mainstream scientists, instead of taking them seriously.

A few rare TCM remedies could be developed into mainstream medicines. But this requires hard work instead of rhetorical ploys. Accusations of racism are not what gets your medicine approved on US/EU market.

Let's take the microbiome: the evidence that all TCM cures are good at the microbiome is simply missing. That's just hand waving at the idea of microbiome. It's not a claim that could be taken seriously, unless there are WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for thousands of TCM remedies.

Chinese medical scientists lack funds for performing research, lack freedom of speech, lack a culture of contradicting their peers if objective evidence so demands—they're basically educated that speaking truth to power is insanity. They know that criticizing TCM could make some CCP boss angry, and that would mean jail time. Totalitarianism is a ruthless game, and science is its victim. The PRC government is not interested whether TCM is effective, they just see it as a cash cow. Research about its effectiveness could only ruin the cash flow. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

This is factually not true. First of all, it's incredibly narrow-minded to just assume all Chinese medical scientists lack in the areas you described, and that the CCP would generally be so offended by critisising TCM. TCM has declined in China due to the more government-funded Western medical system including pharmaceutics. So to assume that the CCP directly somehow profits off TCM or that it is their "cash cow" is laughable. Research funds in China for TCM do still exist - but they are very competitive and generally geared towards Western medicine disease patterns and only available to doctors or researchers who work in clinical contexts.

Apart from that, it is untrue that TCM research only takes place in the People's Republic. TCM is practiced worldwide, and there are many, much more innovative studies coming from countries such as Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Japan. So we're not really talking about "crappy papers" here, we're talking about scientific studies. While not all of the TCM principles can be proven, its efficacy in certain areas of treatment has been proven and continues to be proven as more insights on the nervous system and stimulus processing are made.

I agree that the article lacks a more updated, modern tone. It's not written objectively at all. 2A02:3103:274:3800:11ED:B92D:BFC2:1FCC (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you please provide links or bibliographical data for these scientific studies? Simonm223 (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Artemisinin was broadcasted as a success of TCM. In fact, the way Artemisia got administered as in TCM rendered it ineffective against illness. Artemisinin is a success of modern medicine and chemical industry, rather than that of TCM.

And perhaps I wasn't clear enough: Chinese scientists aren't afraid of making all party bosses angry, or even many of them. Making one angry is enough for doing prison time. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree 100%. The first line is completely inaccurate and such a far-reaching claim should be viewed with skepticism. "A large share of its claims are pseudoscientific, with the majority of treatments having no robust evidence of effectiveness or logical mechanism of action." This shows a complete disregard for hundreds of papers (peer reviewed included) published. A few minutes searching National Institutes of Health should help the authors discover papers written in English, since they implied that the ones written in Chinese are not valuable. There is some good information this document, but now I feel that it is being used to hide the claim that TCM is fringe science. The article left me with a completely negative feeling about TCM, even though as a researcher I know the information to be inaccurate and based on narrow references and bias. Shumanji (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Biomedicine is rife with dodgy papers and fraud, see the replication crisis article for details. Many papers supporting TCM are also in journals specifically about TCM, which raises concerns about bias and conflict of interest. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

People who complain about that need to be told that they are at the wrong website. This website will never agree with their complaints. It is futile trying. What they want is simply put incompatible with Wikipedia. Even if all here wished to make TCM acceptable to mainstream science, we could not do it. And Wikipedia mirrors mainstream science. So, it's not even our fault: that's how mainstream science is, outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a PR venue for pseudoscientists and quackademics.

Any of us, including me and Hemiauchenia, would get quickly topic banned if we would seek to whitewash TCM. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Replaced source on Mao not believing in TCM

I was interested by this claim, so I checked the source to find out more. Previously, it was this one. That's a perfectly respectable source, but the claim is sort of a footnote in an article not very focused on history, written by a non-historian. Looking closer and following the old source's own references, that writer seems to be mainly relying on this Slate article. Said article is a more detailed historical treatment by an academic specializing in a related field, so it seems more appropriate as a source. The claim itself can be traced back to The Private Life of Chairman Mao which is an imperfect but important primary source. Given that, and the sensitive nature of this article, I will also attribute the claim.

This is just a routine improvement, but given how important and touchy this article I felt I ought to explain my edit. Nicknimh (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Fringe

@TommyKirchhoff: You're edit warring with WP:PROFRINGE in an article under the purview of WP:ARBCAM and WP:ARBPS. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

In addition to the credible source I added, I will add many more credible sources to this article, and this page will change for the better. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Removal of credible source

The members who consider themselves the gangsters of this page, who use the word quackery as if it is legitimate, have removed my credible citation. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9844554/ which is a violation. name=:"Houston P 2016">Pam, Houston (Nov 2016). "Health benefits of tai chi". Can Fam Physician. 62 (11): 881–890. PMC 9844554. PMID 28661865. I will add this citation and many more credible citations to this page, and we will all follow the rules. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

From the quoted paper: "... many of the initial trials were small and had methodologic weakness. A key weakness was the lack of blinding of participants... A final limitation of tai chi research is that trial lengths of 6 to 12 weeks might not be sufficient to assess benefit, especially for chronic conditions." tgeorgescu (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Also from the quoted paper:

"Conclusion

Physicians can now provide evidence-based recommendations on tai chi to their patients, understanding that this is an active area of research. As with any exercise program, ongoing medical follow-up for any clinical condition is indicated.

EDITOR’S KEY POINTS

More than 500 studies and 120 systematic reviews have been published. The strongest evidence of benefit is for preventing falls in older adults living in the community, osteoarthritis, Parkinson disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease rehabilitation, improving cognitive capacity, and improving balance and aerobic capacity." TommyKirchhoff (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Garbage in, garbage out. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

You're a cherry picker, George. It's not going to work. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The proper place for addressing that is WP:RSN. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

BOLD is me. Especially when I see on the talk page that you guys are incorrigible. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Again the advice is: be bold, but not reckless. Is Jimmy Wales also incorrigible? See why at WP:LUNATICS. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I did nothing reckless. You guys are reckless. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:1AM. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

From the Eigenshink paper: "Furthermore, an exploration of Tai Chi in comparison to other mobility programs in Parkinson’s disease and other disorders has more recently drawn considerable attention [112]. These TCM-based interventions apparently improve the patient’s ability to move in a reproducible way;" TommyKirchhoff (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Yup, physical exercise improves life. Captain Obvious. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, let's have Parkinson's patients lift weights and jog, Jorge. You're brilliant. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Tai chi is physical exercise, that's what I meant. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for playing, Captain CherryPicker. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Tai chi is martial art, not medicine. It does not belong in this article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. And we don't have to assume that a mystical energy exists in order to admit that physical exercise has health effects. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Tai Chi is a martial art and not traditional chinese medicine so I'm not sure why this article is relevant here. Plus there's always been evidence to suggest that regular physical activity improves health so I'm not sure what this study proves that hasn't already been proven. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 13:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)