Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine

Pseudoscience and western biomedicine colonialism bias/western ethnocentrism

Describing Traditional Chinese Medicine as "pseudoscience" in a post-WHO recognized practice world is nothing short of an ethnocentric bias by western biomedical gatekeepers of medicine/healthcare. This article needs to be edited to recognize the medical anthropology concept of medical pluralism that notes the art of medical care, not just as empirical research of western medicine, but many different practices and techniques shown to be effective (even if empirical research fails to understand how these methods work) are functional methods of healthcare/medicine. Healthcare in of itself is not empirical science. It has existed since the Paleolithic and found in several different animal species other than humans (H. sapiens). Over time certain methods and practices have been proven to be ineffective, even within biomedicine. But some things have stood the test of time regardless if it is associated with biomedicine or not. TCM is one of those practices that have shown to be effective even in some cases where biomedicine fails to be effective. The label "pseudoscience" was important in the age of miasma theory vs germ theory when biomedicine was critiquing itself. But now western biomedicine serves as a vessel for colonialism by means of stealing methods and practices from non-western cultures, repurposing what is found to be "effective" through empirical research, and plagiarizing it as a part of biomedicine while slandering the non-biomedicine practices as "pseudoscience." This term is derogatory and places TCM under the same umbrella as flat earth, creationism/intelligent design, and miasma theory. Please see Medical Anthropology: A Biocultural Approach by Wiley and Allen and use these sources below:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118924396.wbiea1281

https://www.americanscientist.org/blog/from-the-staff/stop-using-the-word-pseudoscience ChallengingAnthropocentrism ([[User talk:|talk]]) 00:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Medicine is not like anthropology field that you come from. It is far less subjective, despite complications with the placebo effect and other confounding factors. There is no robust clinical proof the vast majority of Traditional Chinese Medicine have any sort of effectiveness (see [1]). TCM is pseudoscience because it claims to be a rational method of treatment based on concepts that are not scientific, like vital meridians (see [2]). TCM practitioners often make outlandish claims regarding the effectiveness of their products [3]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

(even if empirical research fails to understand how these methods work)—generally speaking, robust empirical research never claimed that TCM does work at all, with a few exceptions. TCM was adopted by chairman Mao because Western-style anesthesia was too expensive. And the people who dared to say that anesthesia through acupuncture did not work were sent to concentration camps. That's how Mao obtained a consensus on TCM: he sent everybody who disagreed to the labor camp. Mao killed more innocent people than Hitler or Stalin.

TCM relies upon Ancient mystical hogwash, which was revived for utterly cynical reasons under National-Communism.

Medical pluralism might be normative at your faculty, it isn't normative at Wikipedia. It is simply your norm, not our norm. Here normative are WP:MEDRS, WP:PSCI, WP:GEVAL, WP:ECREE, and WP:FRINGE. In the end, Wikipedia is what it is, is not a forum with limitless free speech, so you have to obey our WP:RULES, like any other person who wants to edit here.

If you think we should kowtow to medical pluralism: you're in the wrong place. It's none of our business, see WP:RGW.

I can understand perfectly the argument you're making, and I can tell you for a fact that it is contrary to the policies and guidelines of this encyclopedia. Just because I understand your argument, I don't have to agree with it, nor does anyone else.

Your POV would be absolutely correct in Larry Sanger's interpretation of WP:NPOV (what neutrality should mean according to him). But you should know that the Sangerite interpretation has been vanquished, here at Wikipedia.

Editing is done by the Wikipedia Community, the community is a social group, a social group has social norms, and your argument does not comply with the norms for editing Wikipedia articles. You may choose to become an insider or to remain an outsider. The choice is yours.

But some things have stood the test of time—in the anthropological sense, any superstitious hogwash still practiced in the 21st century "has stood the test of time". That does not say anything though about being capable of healing diseases. Anthropology isn't the science called to make that call. It is just hogwash which has endured for centuries. Anthropology cannot offer the answer if it is effective medicine or quackery. It does not have the required tools for doing that. Medical science has. Anthropology can say "This group of people behave like spirits are real." It cannot say "Spirits are real." That's not how anthropology works. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

"This does not at all mean that we don’t in loose, rough and ready ways judge interpretations… all the time. And this does not at all mean that practically speaking that some interpretations are obviously slightly better than others. Let me return to familiar ones like the traffic light. If it’s red and you see it as green, the outcome can be disastrous; Derrida doesn’t deny it. You know, it’s a bad misreading… bad misreading. But this is a familiar mistake and it is made about a lot of Derrida’s work. Philosophers call someone a relativist by which they mean it’s a person that holds that any view is as good as any other view. My simple response to that is this: that is a straw person argument, no-one in the world believes it or ever has believed it.

"No-one – Derrida or anyone else – believes that every view is as good as every other view. That’s only a view we discuss in freshman philosophy class in order to quickly refute it. I mean no-one believes it. There are no defenders of the view and since this tape will be going out, if we run into one it will be interesting, but we will likely find that person in one of the institutions Foucault discussed rather than in some seminar, okay. That’s where we will find them, if anybody believes that. No, Derrida’s kind of slippage is to remind us that the text of philosophy is not fixed; can not be fixed. It is of the nature of the text of philosophy and its relation to language that we cannot fix it once and for all. In a way it’s like the leaky ship where we haven’t got anything to stop the leak so we just keep bailing. I mean, the leak is in the language."

— —Rick Roderick, 307 Derrida and the Ends of Man (1993)

Quoted by tgeorgescu. And, to answer the charge, it is medical-science-centrism, not ethnocentrism. It is a big difference, though. We don't say that people of Chinese, Hindu, or African origin cannot practice medical science. We criticize superstitions, not nations, nor ethnic groups. Or, to put it otherwise, is nuclear physics ethnocentric? No, since North Korea and Iran love nuclear power. They don't reject nuclear physics as "Western colonialism". Their uranium centrifuges have been designed in the West, but for some reason they don't regard that as "cultural imperialism".

And I can grant you the point that many Chinese herbal teas are effective against diseases. But this is merely because allopathic medicines have been added to the herbs, so marketing them as natural products is a scam. And let's not forget about Herb-Induced Liver Injury. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

In Taiwan to a quarter of traditional Chinese medicines there were seemingly added standard medicines (which are available on prescription). Among them there were dangerous substances, such as phenytoin (an anti-epileptic), glibenclamide (lowers blood sugar) and corticosteroids.

— prof. dr. Martijn B. Katan, Wat is nu gezond? 1st ed., p. 146

In Taiwan a quarter of traditional Chinese medicines were found to apparently incorporate (prescription) drugs. Among them there were dangerous substances, such as phenytoin (an anti-convulsive), glibenclamide (lowers blood sugar) and corticosteroids.

— prof. dr. Martijn B. Katan, Wat is nu gezond? 1st ed., p. 146

Two alternative translations of the same WP:RS. In Dutch:

In supplementen worden ook in Nederland regelmatig toxische gehaltes aangetroffen van lood, arsenicum, kwik, thallium en cadmium. Deels zijn het veront­reinigingen, deels zijn ze toegevoegd vanuit het misplaatste idee dat ze ziekten genezen. Deze stoffen hebben geleid tot hersenoedeem, kanker, nierfalen en sterfte. Verder worden aan Chinese en Indische kruiden soms heimelijk gewone genees­middelen toegevoegd om de werking te versterken. In Taiwan bleken aan een kwart van de traditionele Chinese medicijnen gewone (recept)geneesmiddelen te zijn toegevoegd. Daaronder waren gevaarlijke stoffen als phenytoïne (een anti-epilepsiemiddel), glibenclamide (bloedsuikerverlagend) en corti-costeroïden. Ook kruiden en theesoorten om te vermageren kunnen ernstige bijwerkingen hebben.

— Martijn B. Katan

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

You completely missed the point. I am not claiming that TCM is a replacement or equivalent to western biomedicine. I am illustrating the medical pluralism argument of healthcare being an art form, not just a science. What I propose is to remove the derogatory term "pseudoscience" which has been used to promote colonialism and racism. ChallengingAnthropocentrism (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

No he did not. Things can have more than one property. Something can be an art form and a pseudoscience. That "colonialism and racism" accusation is balderdash. The same people who call TCM pseudosience also call chiropractic and homeopathy pseudoscience, and they [later addition: "they" means those two pseudociences] come from the US and Germany. You are trying to promote WP:FRINGE content and whitewash dangerous quackery that can kill people. Stop it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Nearly every other language of this article is not derogatorily referring TCM, and have sound sourcing/citation, why is that? 58.152.67.69 (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

My educated guess is: because they have not adopted WP:RULES such as WP:MEDRS, WP:PSCI, and WP:FRINGE. And above all: because they don't love science enough. They still lean for the Sangerite understanding of WP:NPOV as bereft of the WP:GEVAL proviso. They have to grow up. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Two Spanish Wikipedia lead sentences (machine translated) from es:Medicina china tradicional: It has been described as "laden with pseudoscience," and most of its treatments do not have a logical, scientifically based mechanism of action.[5​6]​ and: However, it is important to note that the concept of vital energy is pseudoscientific, and scientific research has not found any histological or physiological evidence to support the traditional Chinese concepts of qi, or meridians.note [1​11]

One French Wikipedia lead paragraph (machine translated) from fr:Médecine traditionnelle chinoise: Alongside the history of Chinese medicine, numerous therapies are offered today under the label of “traditional Chinese medicine”, inspired more or less freely by elements of this tradition without updating for essentially folkloric reasons. or commercial1, and constitute a pseudo-science[2,3], with sometimes deleterious effects on potential patients[4].

One German Wikipedia lead paragraph (machine translated) from de:Traditionelle chinesische Medizin: From a scientific point of view, the therapeutic effectiveness of many TCM treatment methods is disputed and several treatment methods are considered pseudoscientific.[10][11] In general, the assumptions of TCM contradict current facts about human physiology or anatomy.[6]

I don't know where you got your Nearly every other language of this article is not claim, but it is not from those three. And even if it were as you say: Wikipedia, in whatever language, is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not the place for TCM, if you want to get detailed info on that, go to Baidu, Wikipedia don't have nearly enough TCM practitioners to make this article lean that way. 58.152.67.69 (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not a question of not having enough editors. The policies and guidelines of Wikipedia do not allow us to treat TCM the way OP and you want. You would be right only if the following were abolished: WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS; WP:LUNATICS, WP:CHOPSY and WP:GOODBIAS; WP:DUE, WP:PSCI and WP:FALSEBALANCE; WP:ARBPS and WP:ARBCAM. Since this hasn't happened, you're wrong, completely wrong. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I know, I am talking about these polices, there is not enough TCM practitioners here to influence them, and I'm not even thinking about "treat TCM the way OP and I want.", I'm just saying Baidu is more tolerant with TCM. 58.152.67.69 (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, the policies and guidelines are subservient to the purpose of writing a science- and WP:SCHOLARSHIP-based encyclopedia. Meaning: WP:PAGs are not arbitrary whims, which could change through democratic participation. We're merciless with superstitions, including with Western superstitions. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I should waste more time with you and your policies, It's not even my central point. 58.152.67.69 (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for TCM—I agree. Generally speaking: medical science is not the place for TCM. Or, shorter: science is not the place for TCM. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, glad we agree. 58.152.67.69 (talk) 06:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

Article should not be in the pseudoscience category

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

---

It is no more pseudoscience than something like alchemy. You can't just put the entirety of TCM in the pseudoscience category when at least some of it has been proven. SecretSpectre (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

TCM, in its actual incarnation, is a product of the 20th century, specifically the Cultural Revolution.

Also, since it has tens of thousands of remedies, tens of them are effective by mere chance. That does not "prove" TCM.

And there is a dirty secret of why the Chinese herbal teas are effective against illness, see the quote from Katan above. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I usually think it's best to disregard these perennial complaints, but I have to comment that I agree that TCM is little different in this regard than alchemy is. In fact, it's a good comparison. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

1. Most TCM formulae etc. have been around for a thousand years, before the cultural revolution
2. Is that not how discoveries are made? Most of the formulations were made before the very concept of science itself. I think it is more of a proto-science.
3. Some unscrupulous actors does not mean the entire thing is invalid. I, for one, have never seen pharmaceuticals in TCM. People regularly use Western medicine to claim all sorts of rubbish too. Or maybe we could have a separate article for controversies in TCM like those claims have.

SecretSpectre (talk) 23:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

No, it does not mean that the entire thing is invalid. But claiming that the entire thing (or most of it) is valid falls under WP:ECREE. Simply because those preparations have been used for thousands of years does not imply that those are effective against illness. People are prone to believe they have been healed due to those preparations, instead of realizing they were healed because those illnesses heal by themselves.

Again, the progress of Western medicine lies in jettisoning all sorts of superstitions, including Western superstitions. Impertinence in respect to received opinion was the path to success.

I can agree that 200 years ago, TCM was protoscience. But today it is mostly bunk.

Science is a gauntlet of skepticism. That's normal, that's how it should be. Subjecting TCM to organized skepticism isn't racism. Same as seeking to falsify the theory of relativity isn't antisemitism. It's just what scientists do for a living. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely, there are large amounts of peer reviewed journal articles showing the effectiveness of acupuncture, Chinese herbs, and Qi ging for many things.

No wonder universities don't allow Wikipedia to be used as a reference for any assessments! 2001:4479:910B:7B00:A107:CBC8:E3AC:9176 (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

See organized skepticism and WP:LUNATICS for why TCM is getting bad press. We simply don't believe Comrade Mao on his word of honor that TCM is effective.

If you're seeking to argue that TCM has mainstream scientific support: you're at the wrong website. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to back up how TCM was made by "Comrade Mao" instead of continuing to make reductio ad stalinum arguments SecretSpectre (talk) 01:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

A few are cited in the article. Slate's article, titled Chairman Mao Invented Traditional Chinese Medicine is a good place to start. MrOllie (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

My great-grandmother was the herbalist of the village. Her wish to help others was genuine, but sincerity is not enough: her views about medicine were fanciful.

So, you see, I do not single out the Chinese. This is not a conflict between races, but a conflict between traditional lore and the scientific worldview.

It would cost hundreds of billions of dollars to sort out which TCM remedies are effective. And the Chinese government knows that such research can only hurt the Chinese economy, through tarnishing the reputation of TCM.

https://www.azquotes.com/quotes/topics/salary.html

Saw https://www.nrdc.org/stories/rhino-horns-are-basically-just-giant-toenails-and-these-images-wont-let-you-forget-it ? But some people never learn, and still think rhino horns are a potent medicine. But, well, those are people for whom scientific education is unaffordable. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Nobody here is accusing you of racism

And folk medicine isn't exactly pseudoscience either SecretSpectre (talk) 07:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/teach/class-clips-video/articles/zgqrdnb — we don't revive the remedies of the Tudor doctors. Folk medicine is largely obsolete in the age of evidence-based medicine. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Nobody here is accusing you of racism People are claiming that using the word "pseudoscience" is racist, so, you are wrong.

folk medicine isn't exactly pseudoscience When it pretends to be science, as acupuncture and other TCM variants do, yes, it is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, who is this "people" who claim pseudoscience is a racist term? SecretSpectre (talk) 09:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/202.40.137.199.

Let's see:

The philosophy of TCM is fanciful according to modern anatomy.

The way TCM MDs diagnose people is fanciful according to modern nosology.

The vast majority of TCM remedies have neither biological plausibility, nor they never stood the test of RCTs. Most of those remedies are fanciful according to modern pharmacognosy.

This stuff gets taught at the university.

Isn't this delusion on a grand scale?

And Mao got away with it by labeling reality-based MDs as counterrevolutionaries. All MDs who dared to say that TCM is crazy ended in the concentration camp. That's how one gets scientific consensus in a totalitarian country. Displaying evidence of critical thinking was the ultimate proof one is an enemy of the people. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

That is misrepresentation. The link you posted and the contributions said nothing about pseudoscience, not even this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1166#User:Tgeorgescu_racist_remarks

NOt a word talked about pseudoscience.

You are still talking about Mao who died in 1976, with inflammatory remarks such as "concentration camp" and "a totalitarian country". I do not know why Wikipedia can tolerate this kind of remarks, which are mostly inaccurate and are made without any evidence. Wikipedia's tolerance and bias towards long time contributors are astonishing. 202.40.137.196 (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@SecretSpectre I'm sorry, it looks like you are intimidated and won't reply to this anymore. 202.40.137.196 (talk) 07:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Stop using this page as a forum. We have reliable sources saying that large parts of TCM are pseudoscience, and we do not have reliable sources saying that there are no large parts of TCM which are pseudoscience. End of story. Bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

there are large amounts of peer reviewed journal articles showing the effectiveness of acupuncture, Chinese herbs, and Qi ging for many things There are also large amounts of peer reviewed journal articles "showing" the effectiveness of homeopathy, which does not work. "Peer reviewed journal articles" is not enough of a criterion. What is needed is a higher level of sources. See WP:MEDRS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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)