Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Drive-by ranter drops a nugget

Anyone with half a rational brain could read the obvious bias in this "article" which uses primarily objectionable - from any "rationalist" point of view - topics to talk about TCM (which has been unceremoniously lumped with ancient Chinese Medicine). Aside from the need to arrogantly disregard Chinese sciences from an egalitarian, and disgustingly Victorian (ie: racist) sentiment... it's obvious that this article is meant only for a certain audience, and is completely unhelpful for anyone seeking answers on health or history.

Not unlike the "science" book Jehovah's Witnesses force their adherents to read about Creationism, just the opposite side of the same coin. Certainly NOT a ver sociological proofed page!

Far be it for anyone "rational" to bother to spend any time actually understanding something they do not, and refuse to understand. That might be too much work.

But make no mistake... CORPORATIONS spend money to do it. And when they produce SCIENTIFIC products like Airborne, stealing the ingredients lists from TCM formulas (Yin Qiao San, in the case of Airborne), it isn't "psuedoscience" that they draw upon, or the "mythological" origins (LOL! nope, no doctors involved there). I assure you they very seriously gather data and study the texts to understand the processes and potentials in our substantial - and FAR SAFER than pharmaceuticals - pharmacopoeia. Fact.

Enjoy your ignorance... I certainly get to enjoy the benefit of both eastern and western sciences, without being restrained by vain, blind faith and dogmatic allegiance to any limited paradigm. But until you do, you'll always be the victim. Ironically, so long as you don't know jack about Qi, on a personal level, you'll get to enjoy illness and disease in a way I just don't anymore. Not since I stopped being a pure rationalist, atheist, and general white, know-it-all jerk judging other cultures from my pedestal. Looking back on that guy, who might aid people like "ratwiki" (haha) in their personal agenda to forwarding a faith that destroys nature and health throughout the world, let alone culture and diversity... looking back I marvel at how far I've come to real freedom, and to avoiding the vast waste of Qi.

Enjoy ignorance. Karma is a honey badger. ^{— Unsigned, by: 74.136.147.208 / talk 02:19, 29 July 2015}

What is this drivel? Telling that wrong things are wrong is not racist, you Chinese fanatic. Those corporations who spend on traditional Chinese bullshit are scammers. Please give me scientific sources for those claims that support your bullshit. And you aren't dogmatic wilto your TCM bullshit, are you? We are aware and critical of industries negatively impacting environment, but that doesn't make your trad drivel any better. And not all traditional things are goid. Justifying regressive practices and pseudoscience is not diversity. Kindly fuck off, you brainwashed Chinese nationalist cuck. 🇷🇸 Serbian Arbiter (What would you have your arbiter do?) 15:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Rational Artical?

Since this Wiki is known as rational it should not mention topics without context. And also it is not rational to have out of Context Exsamples.

So the hole article should be reworked since it is not scientific rather than a opinion of the author.

The hole article is out of context. Since it is not set in a proper relation. Starting with the paragraph Enviromental Impact , it suggests that it is just a Thing of TCM. But since Western Medicine does thousends of animal tests and a lot of other stuff which could be mentioned as "not safe",you could even state thate thousends of people die to surgery fails. so this paragraph is out of relevance for TCM.

ALso the paragraph Lethal substitution is an example with no statement. It does not state out if the physician within the spa lerned TCM in China. And therefor not yust claimed to know what they are doing. It is also just an example. How many peaple die each day on chemotherapy (and at this point i just mention the people who are declared as "cured" but die one year after chemotherapy do officaliy not count as victims of chemotherapy.

I could go one but i will stop here. SORRY but this is NOT scientific.

greetings ^{— Unsigned, by: 87.138.114.48 / talk 13:50, 26 February 2016}

Please don't go on. It appears that you are rather stupid. This is a perfectly acceptably scientific article, given that TCM is based mostly on myth and hand-waving. If you can't see the difference between testing on domesticated animals and killing rare species for random parts of their anatomy, you need help. Compared to real medicine, TCM has an appalling success rate. If you don't like that fact, tough shit. That's the real world. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 14:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I think this BoN is likely a Poe. If they think this terribly spelled and laughable concept is in any way helping their cause I would be shocked. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I sincerely hope English is not that BON's first language.Petey Plane (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You interpreted to much inside my words. I just mentioned that this article is out of context. I did not defend the killing of rino's. I also did not say TCM does work. So in other word's. Examples do not work as empirical studies. So in an "rational wiki" it should not be allowed to argue on example to prove once one opinion(This is what conspiracist do). In best case it is an evidence that an theory is not exact and therefore has to be adapted. In worst case it is not relevant but mentioned as it is. Again other words for your understanding. What would be if I use this wiki, make an Entry about "real/western medicine" and i would state out that everyday thousands of people die cause of physician's failures (https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=34016). And therefore would tell the world that it is harmful, this would be the way argued in this article. ^{— Unsigned, by: 87.138.114.48 / talk 16:40, 26 February 2016}

you missed my point about: "Compared to real medicine, TCM has an appalling success rate.". The issue is not that one or the other can have bad outcomes (that much should be obvious), but that the scientific evidence strongly indicates that TCM in general is rubbish and that real medicine beats it in every meaningful measurement. That is not opinion; that is fact, backed up by copious evidence. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 16:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Which is incorrect as well. Hospitals and physicians see tens of millions of people a year, and they actually report how many adverse events they have from overnight techs leaving the room to pee to people having the wrong body part operated on, where there is no system that tracks how many people use alternative medicine or how many adverse events happen. A system which alt-med providers have fought. There's even an article that details this issue. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You're the one who is conspiracist. Modern medicine is just an advanced version of traditional medicine. But if you still latch on to traditional medicine while the former already exists and claim that former medicine is better than the latter just because it's not made by LE EBIL WESTERN SATANS, you are a moron and should fuck off. And also, every modern medicament already lists adverse effects and when to and when not to use it in their instructions. Read before using medicine, bitch.

EDIT: I fucking hate the Wiki format for discussions. 🇷🇸 Serbian Arbiter (What would you have your arbiter do?) 16:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Oral TCM among Boston/Austin ethnic Chinese parents and children

[library.ingentaconnect.com/content/aapd/pd/2016/00000038/00000004/art00007 Useful for finding what the common ones are]. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 00:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

This link did not work for me. Bongolian (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

BoN complaining and Gish galloping

"Anecdotal evidence" is not equivalent to lack of evidence. The scientific method is by no means the only way to know stuff. For a very long time prior to the emergence of the scientific method, people have known that driving a sword through someone's body is a highly effective way to provoke death, based purely on anecdotal evidence. Although the scientific method has indeed produced far more effective weapons, it has done "jack shit" to reduce humans' propensity towards violence and wars as evidenced by the appalling historical records of the 20th century with eugenics programmes resulting in several genocides (Native Indians, Armenian, Jewish, Homosexuals, Gypsies -- aka social Darwinism) and the mass killing of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians in record time by means of atomic weapons, to name but a few examples. From the anecdotal evidence readily available -- that is to say based on multiple subjective reports of war, torture and violence around the world -- it does not appear that the 21st century will yield better results.

More to the point perhaps, for a very long time prior to the emergence of the scientific method, people have known that ingesting peyote, ayahuasca, cannabis, opium, some kinds of mushrooms, etc, triggers a psychedelic experience. I don't think there is any debate possible regarding their effectiveness even today. The effectiveness of these plants was discovered purely through anecdotal means I.E.: a subjective experience communicated to other human beings via language. That being the case, there is no reason to doubt thousands of anecdotal reports of improvement (or lack thereof) following the ingestion of herbal medicines collected over the millennia.

As for the "pet rhino" issue, please note the following: 1/ The substance was traditionally used as an antipyretic - nothing whatsoever to do with sexual potency. That is just a myth peddled by ignorant people. 2/ For a very long time, the substance has been substituted with water buffalo horn 3/ I have lived in Asia (including China, Vietnam and Thailand) for a very long time and there is no way anyone can obtain rhino horn from any TCM pharmacy in any of these countries just to dispel another myth

Should the authors of this article be genuinely concerned about the extinction of species (including our own), it is quite clear that the rise of the scientific method used to motivate decisions and drive concrete actions has coincided with: 1/ An unprecedented increase in human population resulting in a commensurate loss of habitat for non-human species resulting in mass extinction: "In fact, 99 percent of currently threatened species are at risk from human activities, primarily those driving habitat loss, introduction of exotic species, and global warming (source: https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/) 2/ The production of very effective insecticide substances that have been used for over half a century resulting in a drop of 80% of the total population of flying insect in Europe (source: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/where-have-all-insects-gone) in only three decades 3/ The emergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria occurring worldwide (source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4378521/) 4/ The denial of the validity of subjective experience leading to chronic depressive states, despair and an increased number of suicides (source: Paul Feyerabend, Against Method: "Any method attempting to remove human subjectivity is bound to produce inhuman results"; https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/09/12/mental-health-disorders.aspx; https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)61611-6/fulltext; https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/25/americas-opioid-crisis-how-prescription-drugs-sparked-a-national-trauma) ^{— Unsigned, by: 2403:6200:8856:3636:ddd:8723:2223:ebf8 / talk 08:22, 9 July 2019}

I'm not sure what this has to do with TCM. Not all conventional wisdom or tradition is wrong, but some is, and the scientific method is a good way of working out what is true and false. If modern science has resulted in mass extinctions (arguable), that has nothing to do with the truth of TCM. Rhino horn is promoted for many different purposes beyond relieving fevers (almost everything except as an aphrodisiac, its seems).[1] --Annanoon (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

That first paragraph has so many holes in reasoning. There's the fundamental problem in the reasoning: a strawman and misunderstanding of why we reject anecdotal evidence; that is, if we reject anecdote, it must mean that we deny all personal experience of having occurred. There's a flawed analogy (possible non sequitur) and that is applied to argue that some obvious personal experience like fire is hot can then be applied to cause-and-effect of traditional medicine because a lot of people also report on it. Or since psychedelic plants produce real effects, Chinese medicine works. So, we should effectively lower the bar for evidence for Chinese medicine working because it is assumed the efficacy of Chinese medicine is self-evident based on thousands of ancedotes and appeal to conventional wisdom. I'm not going to go into the weapons and war stuff since that's irrelevant to the debate and appears to be just poisoning the well.

First, "anecdotal evidence" is pretty much lack of evidence, if it's not used collectively, like an interesting case or cohort study, to get attention to potential issue (scientists have already studied traditional Chinese medicine). Compared to evidence from scientific trials. it's far too unreliable to be considered given human memory is bad and prone to contamination, confounding factors have not been addressed and controlled, confirmation bias, no set timespan to rule outpossible temporary regress to the norm, and a microscopic sample size (usually extreme minimum being one). Anecdote 👏 is 👏 not 👏 plural 👏 of 👏 data and the thousands of anecdotes from thousands of years mean pretty much nothing. Conventional wisdom, actually, is sometimes very, very wrong. Tobacco was considered medicine for thousands of years because it produced calming effects. Bloodletting, asbestos, lead were also used as medicine. You can procure positive anecdotes for radioactive material you feed to people. The scientific method is there to help discern truth from bullshit.

Second, even if plants can produce some psychedelic effect, we don't deny this, but plants often contain tons of other junk as well as extremely inconsistent dosage per plant. Traditional Chinese medicine is mired with these problems of improper dosage and having other ingredients that interfere with possible effects. It's why we don't on herbal supplements and medicine derived from plants usually end up as a purified compound that amplifies the effects of a desired chemical.

The latter part of the argument just appears to deflect to other problems while also tarring the scientific method ("it is quite clear that the rise of the scientific method used to motivate decisions and drive concrete actions has coincided with [ecological problems]", which scientists are also working on. It's actually an established phenomenon that endangered animals are under threat because of the market for this medicine. And you know what,you say water buffalo is substituted, but wild water buffalo is also endangered. Also worth checking that other article. And while it's fine that there are some misconceptions about rhino, it's still evident rhinos are being exploited for medicine to the point that the Chinese government has taken action against it.

By the way, one of your links is to an insane quack cancer cures website from Joseph Mercola. Just need to point that out; it's overall irrelevant to the argument. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 18:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I am going to make this as short as possible. Firstly, as already pointed out and evidenced by the fact that we now have much better weapons, there is no question that the "scientific method" helps discern "Truth" from "Bullshit". However, since there also appears to be a strong correlation between the rise of the scientific method as a guiding principle of human societies and an unprecedented population boom, mass exploitation of ressources, mass pollution, mass extinction of non-human species resulting in unprecedented and irreversible damages to the biosphere, hydrosphere and cryosphere (some like to call these consequences "Progress"), it is becoming increasingly obvious that the scientific method is seriously flawed on some level. Now, what might these flaws be?

The scientific method excels at breaking down and analysing aspects of phenomena but fails to foresee the impact that amplifying (through technology) such aspects have on the Whole (I.E.: it is reductionist). In that context, the scientific method excels at telling "truth" from "bullshit" but does not seem to provide a means to tell the difference between "right" and "wrong". The scientific method can indeed produce better weapons, means of production and better medicines but fails to appreciate the impact these technologies have on the Whole in the long run. Medical scientists are now observing this impact in the form of multiple drugs resistant organisms against which they can do nothing. The same can be said about other teams of scientists observing powerlessly the cryosphere melting and the biosphere dying. That being the case, I predict with 99.99% confidence that humanity will be decimated, if not exterminated, by epidemics, famines and wars within the next 10 to 20 years. The "scientific method & industrial civilisation tandem" that was adopted and imposed as the New Saviour of Humanity will have lasted around 500 years, which will go down in history as the shortest civilisation ever lived, provided there is anyone left on planet Earth to tell the tale.

Having now said that, it would seem futile to extol the benefits of TCM to editors that have obviously been so thoroughly converted (brainwashed?) to scientism, as evidenced by the answers received so far. It is quite clear that no argument will convince them of anything. It might suffice to say that TCM doctors would not have been allowed to stay in business or even to live for very long had they not performed adequately. Indeed, quite a few of them were executed throughout the centuries which seems like a potent motivation to get things right. By the same token, people do not need to appeal to any method whatsoever to assess whether or not they are feeling better or worse following any treatment based on their subjective experience. To use Bob Dylan's own words: "You do not need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows". So, despite all the bullshit one may find at the heart of TCM, it has managed to last some 3,000 years during which it was continuously reviewed and amended, produced much better applications that its Western counterpart during the same time period (except perhaps the last 150 or so years), and on the whole, managed to avoid generating anywhere near the massive imbalances one can observe today in modern societies running the scientific-method-technology software. While there is no question that TCM has indeed caused some disturbances to the biosphere (what civilisation has not?), there is no way this can be used as an argument to dismiss the entire topic, especially when such argument is pushed forward by members of a culture that is by far a much bigger offender. Essentially, that would summarise what is wrong with this "article" that reads more like: "white man's science knows best so let's slag off the chink's quack medicine" than a serious attempt to even try to understand, let alone praise TCM for any of its historical achievements of which there are many:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF82SRJv-y8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uhdRtSdL7o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5084uuabXA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3_q3GRtebo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41O3RdWgg0U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHzoelPNg4A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkRFIcwG7hU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytg5z0ZazMk

Let's just hope an acupuncturist skilled in anesthesia will survive your slandering campaign and be readily available should any of you finds him or herself in need of surgery during the forthcoming collapse. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2403:6200:8856:4a09:d9cc:fe69:4026:c2e4 / talk 05:34, 10 July 2019}

1) We didn't slander anyone. One can only slander a specific person. 2) Yawn. "Acupuncture does not seem to reduce the requirement for volatile anesthetic, at least not by a clinically important amount."[2] Bongolian (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

This giant post is bollocks. This sort of cause and effect argument is not only irrelevant to the efficacy of tcm, it's an hyperbolic means to poison the well but with flimsy stringing cause and effect with no supporting arguments. It's an extravagant claim to say the scientific method is ambivalent to morality; science has determined that many aspects of morality originated from survival behavior. It helps us explain basic morality and trust in others, not so more complex problems like capitalism or eating animals.

Also, airplane design being flawed doesn't prove magic carpets. Even if your argument had some merit, the burden of proof is still on tcm practitioners. Also, excuse you, your persecution is showing and you're just lobbying lousy ad hominems (calling us "brainwashed" because we believe tcm is snake oil for producing unimpressive results compared to placebo or real medicine, results from large meta analyses). There's a good reason tcm aren't being paid attention, have you considered that, maybe, they're just useless concoctions? You also put a lot of weight to personal experience when it's been just explained in detail above why anecdotes are useless. I shouldn't have to go over this again. I also shouldn't have to go over it again on why the "it has survived thousands of years" again either, which I have already addressed above, see bloodletting.

Dismissing tcm isn't racism. We dismiss it based on its lack of merit to serious (i.e. scientismist") scrutiny. This scrutiny means it being measured against placebo, double blinded, proper statistical calculations, proper definition of terms, showing a dose response relationship, proper measurement, large sample size, replicability, peer review, proper controls in control group... All which tcm utterly fails. Explain to me what any of this has to do with believing a race is inferior. Science has also shown racism to be based on irrational beliefs, too.

No one said, "tcm has ecological disruption, therefore, we should dismiss practices as a whole." This is a strawman. See above why we dismiss tcm.

By the way, you speak fondly of acupuncture, but did you know acupuncture fell out of favor for the quack superstitious "medicine" it was until Mao decided to reinvirogate it for purely nationalistic reasons? Even he didn't think that's qualified as medicine. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 06:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Bongolian (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Any tradition, medical or otherwise, that goes back 3,000 years would fail to satisfy the scientific method as it is applied today. That would include Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Pascal, Descartes, Hegel, Swedenborg, Goethe, Kant, Hume, Engels, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Pointcaré, Poppers, Einstein, Whitehead, Heisenberg (yes, I have read them all) and so on, that to my knowledge, are never referred to as "bollocks", "bullshit" and/or any other undignified expletives in contemporary philosophy of science textbooks. On the contrary, these philosophers -- all of them white Europeans, as I am sure you are well aware -- are still greatly revered and taught today in Western schools, even if later forms of reasoning and further discoveries have now superseded theirs. It seems you fail to understand that the same applies to TCM that was rooted firstly in shamanism, then in Taoism, and was and carries on to be corrected, refined and evolved over time, although it still is on a different path from their Western counterparts (source: https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/2016/chinese-medicine-sustainable/en/). As it seems you are not well acquainted with Eastern philosophy, I suggest you should study it to a minimum level of comprehension in order to understand how it has been successfully applied to every aspects of life in Asia, including: agriculture, water management, social sciences, architecture, martial arts, medicine and so on. I do not feel it is my function or duty to educate you on these topics but since you have taken it upon yourself to tackle TCM in the most derogatory way imaginable, the least you could do is to mention Taoism at least *once* in your article. Indeed, if an equivalent article on biochemical medicine would likewise fail to mention the scientific method as a major tenet underpinning its practice and omit to stipulate that such method did not appear ready made out of a box dreamed by Sir Francis Bacon one bright morning but slowly evolved as a tradition over the course of three millennia, I am certain a westerner would take exception. On this topic, I invite you again to read "Against Method" by Paul Feyerabend.

As you keep insisting and focusing on some alleged failures and holes in my reasoning, I suggest you should adopt a more mature attitude regarding the scientific method whether applied to medicine or to any other technology. Some examples might help illustrate my point. While "evidence based medicine" understands infectious diseases fairly well, thanks to the germ theory, it has virtually no understanding of why and how many medications operate on non-infectious disorders. For example, lithium is routinely prescribed for bipolar disorders in spite of the fact that: "The specific biochemical mechanism of lithium action in stabilizing mood is unknown (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_(medication)#Mechanism_of_action). In terms of toxicity, the number of what is euphemistically called "side-effects" (which should more honestly be called "effects") of a vast number of biochemical drugs vastly outweighs the benefits they are supposed to provide. As already mentioned, the use of antibiotics on infectious agents has caused so much resistance that some previously treatable diseases have now become extremely resilient to the point of being virtually untreatable (MDRTB, for example). All of this occurs in spite of "being measured against placebo, double blinded, proper statistical calculations, proper definition of terms, showing a dose response relationship, proper measurement, large sample size, replicability, peer review and proper controls in control group". In addition, I feel it is valid to ask if there could perhaps be an "ever so slight" vested interest for pharmaceutical companies to disseminate negative information regarding herbal medicine as it undermines their monopoly, as already observed with big tobacco, oil or agricultural biotechnology companies. It's not that TCM is not being given any attention. Just the opposite, TCM is being given too much attention. Such attitude is clearly more pronounced in Western countries (as evidenced by your article) than in Asia where research on TCM carries on unabated (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_University_of_Traditional_Chinese_Medicine#Research; https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ecam/2019/3961395/; https://science.sciencemag.org/content/299/5604/188; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876355311600082; https://www.moh.gov.sg/research-grants/traditional-chinese-medicine-research-grant).

Regarding the "Environmental Impact" section of this article, it is simply unthinkable that TCM should be mentioned as having an impact on "rhinos, pangolins, sharks, seahorses, manta rays, lions, leopards and tigers" (most of which are banned by governments and unobtainable in TCM pharmacies) and totally fails to make a connection with the systematic bombing and spraying of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia with thousands of tons of Napalm and gallons of Agent Orange (highly lethal substances produced by applying the scientific method that make all the TCM herbalists who mistakenly used mercury look like inept schoolboys in comparison - source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Effects_of_U.S._chemical_defoliation) during the 19 years, 5 months, 4 weeks and 1 days the conflict lasted. Has it ever occurred to you that such a treatment of the environment might be somewhat more related to the "drop of 90% in rhino population since the mid 1970s" than poaching motivated by TCM? Has it ever occurred to you that TCM practitioners want to sustain and protect these ressources since they allegedly depend on them? Has it ever occurred to you that such a drop has never been observed until the USA started an ideological war in Asia based on nothing more than a lie (I take you are well aware that the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened according to declassified documents, source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident#NSA_report)? So much then for holes in my reasoning. How about taking a good look at the chasms in your understanding of history for starters?

Last but not least, TCM did indeed briefly "fall out of favour" (it was actually made illegal) during the Kuomingtang period that went from the collapse of the imperial system in 1911 to 1949 when the People's Republic of China was founded. This was called "The loss of China" which, in U.S. political discourse, refers to: "the unexpected Communist Party takeover of mainland China from the American-backed Nationalists in 1949, and therefore the "loss of China to communism" (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_of_China). Obviously, the American-backed (funded) nationalists would ban anything that does not favour anything not Western-based, including pharmaceuticals and medicine. Mao did indeed reinstate TCM in the 1950s but it was not for nationalistic reasons. Mao reinstated TCM because he and his armies had to rely on TCM (mainly for lack of funding) during their long struggle and found it to be quite efficacious much to their surprise in view of the fact that communists wholeheartedly embrace science and materialism and revile anything relying remotely on religion or superstition which says something about the value of anecdotal evidence and subjective experience.

As I understand you are a New York based website, it is not surprising to find anti-Chinese propaganda here. Obviously, this is nothing new as evidenced by the term "Loss of China" which clearly implies that, at the very least high-ranking if not most Americans felt that China (along with North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and so on) belonged to them in the first place. I leave you to meditate the effects such bombing campaigns, chemical attacks and use of language -- including the general tone of your article -- have on the peoples finding themselves on the receiving end of such brutality and arrogance. I sincerely hope you will understand that they are more likely to rely on anecdotal evidence (how granddad lost his leg on a landmine and was treated for phantom limb by a Vietnamese acupuncturist, for example) and subjective experience rather than the scientific method to evaluate if they are being treated as equal or as master bullshiters, cannon fodder or experimental lab rats that one gases without a second thought.

P.S: The videos from my previous post have nothing to do with my "fondness" for acupuncture but were provided as convincing anecdotal evidence that this voodoo shit really works.

Have a nice day! ^{— Unsigned, by: 2403:6200:8856:687a:6c69:5dc2:65ba:a7d6 / talk 4:56, 11 July 2019}

I could read ALL of this trite bullshit

... Or i could reply to the first sentence. If you want Plato or Des Cartes administering medicine to you, you're every bit as stupid and dangerous as TCM advocates. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

And we already know about Paul Feyerabend, and suffice to say we are not convinced by his arguments. Oh, and if you haven't noticed your comparison to the Vietnam War fails by virtue that the bombing and Agent Orange use didn't continue for decades after the war's conclusion (see also Whataboutism). Now seeing as we have reached an impasse, I suggest you either hold your tongue or take your business elsewhere.--Logos (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I also like how they named Aristotle as one of the greats whose timeless truths would fail to satisfy the scientific method. The guy put forward the theory of spontaneous generation -- that flies and maggots popped out of nowhere from spoiled meat, for example -- a concept that was disproved centuries later by Pasteur using, surprise surprise, the scientific method.

Just speaking as an Asian-American as well, I'm not sure I appreciate the sort of language they use regarding the experiences of SE Asian peoples (including the odd lumping-in of North Korea with Southeast Asian nations) in the face of past American jingoism. I have to wonder if the BoN is actually of East/SE Asian ethnicity, or if they're not and merely appropriating it to be sanctimonious. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Judging by how he harps on about China specifically and its political issues, I'm more inclined to assume he's Chinese (or at least associated with China) and is just treating the other SE Asian countries as being "basically Chinese" as far as he cares. --Logos (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Also read the Aristolochia page for the best known example of TCM (and Western herbal medicine) failing for centuries, right up through today. Bongolian (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Science doesn't know everything, core fallacy. That which works is inevitably merged with the existing system. That which doesn't work is discarded, and good riddance. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Imagine the look on this BoN's face that we defend msg (and with the same framework we use to condemn tcm, that is, with evidence and also rejecting ancedotes that are used to denigrate msg), which is a common and delicious ingredient in Asian cuisine, particularly Chinese cuisine.

I'm of Chinese descent. I guess I pass as white, but I nevertheless am more keen on anti-Asian racism. Rejecting TCM as racist is like saying critics of homeopathy are racist against white Germans or something. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 18:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Don't give them ideas, they'll totally say that. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for all your replies that are missing my points by a very long shot. Here is why:

1. All the philosophers of science mentioned above and the theories they proposed have been falsified. That being the case, they can all be dismissed as "bollocks" and "bullshit". However, this is clearly not the case as they are still taught in Western schools today. Although TCM is rooted in philosophy, there is no mention of a single Eastern philosopher in this article. In view of the fact that TCM is construed as "bullshit" and "bollocks", such omission could easily be understood to mean that such negative appreciation also applies to Eastern philosophy and philosophers which is obviously a sign of ignorance, arrogance and bias for:
2. Science is only one tradition amongst many. While it has produced some impressive results reflected chiefly in the field of technology, it is currently failing spectacularly in terms of sustainability as evidenced by the ongoing mass extinction of species (which can hardly be attributed to TCM), mass pollution and climate disruption that will become unmanageable in the coming decades even if there is an immediate and radical change of course.
3. TCM has made mistakes and so has Western medicine. Mercury was used to treat syphilis up until the advent of antibiotics that were incidentally discovered *by chance*. In other words, people do their best with what they have until something better comes along which is true at all times and for all civilisations. Neither TCM nor biochemical medicine use mercury today.
4. The claim that evidence based medicine is safe and incorruptible has been repeatedly falsified by numerous court cases (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical_settlements) incidentally based on *anecdotal evidence*. The list presented here is only the tip of the iceberg. Please also see "Thalidomide" (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide#Birth_defect_crisis), for example.
5. There is no "objective" reasons for preferring science and Western rationalism to other traditions. There are no reasons that do not depend on a subjective element (aka *a bias*) such as commitment or personal preferences. "Objective" reasons do not exist since the choice of objectivity as measure is itself a personal and/or a group choice that most people accept without much thought.
6. Western civilisation is either imposed by force or accepted because it produces better weapons and not because of arguments showing its intrinsic truthfulness. While doing some good, it also caused enormous damage. Take the eradication of American native cultures based on such rationalisations as their "inferiority", "savagery", "superstitions", "false beliefs" and so on by the European conquerors that converted and enslaved populations, eliminated the most rebellious elements, burned all native documents, destroyed buildings and used the stones to cover the ruins with their own palaces and churches. Were they eliminated on rational grounds, by letting them compete with science in an impartial and controlled way or was their disappearance the result of military, political, economic, etc pressure? The exact same pattern can be observed on the African and Asian continents to this day. The wars that ravaged China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and North Korea were clearly *ideologically motivated*. The same can be said of this article.
7. There is no mention of "racism" anywhere in my posts as the behavioural patterns mentioned in point 6 above are nothing whatsoever to do with race and everything to do with what a small gang of autistic intellectuals declare to be true (aka "ideological arrogance"). Theoreticians are not more innocent than appliers since they recommend analysis over and above understanding and this, even in domains dealing with human beings. To extol the "rationality" and "objectivity" of science without realising that a procedure whose main aim is to get rid of all human elements is bound to lead to inhuman actions. To distinguish between the good that science can do "in principle" and the bad it actually does can hardly provide any comfort. All religions are "good" in principle but unfortunately, this abstract good has hardly prevented their practitioners from behaving like bastards or like colonialist gangsters.
8. To say repeatedly: "Science is right, TCM is bullshit because we say so; we will not consider any alternative reasoning or any evidence because it's bollocks by definition. So there!" does not constitute a valid argument. By the same token, insulting people and idly speculating about their racial identity is hardly a sign of rationality or maturity.

^{— Unsigned, by: 2403:6200:8856:7a2d:d99f:14f7:173:e3b9 / talk 10:40, 12 July 2019} ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Since when did TCM ever cure someone of cancer? — Oxyaena ^Harass 11:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Since when did anyone "cure" cancer?

In spite of billions of dollars of taxpayer money spent on research every single year, the incidence of cancer cases has barely moved over time and the number of new cases is actually on the rise in the USA. Source: https://gis.cdc.gov/Cancer/USCS/DataViz.html

(click on the "Trends" tab).

When it comes to cancer, the best approach is prevention. A fact well known to the Iraqis living among tons of depleted uranium or the Japanese living around Fukushima, courtesy of the US military-industrial complex bringing freedom, democracy and good health to a town near you soon. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2403:6200:8856:7A2D:D99F:14F7:173:E3B9 / talk 14:17, 12 July 2019}

So what? So cancer may never be cured, that doesn't mean we need to consume questionable substances from questionable sources. Further, the latter-most point in your last reply is a non-sequitur. The actions of the U.S. military has no bearing on medical research, and as I said before, if any part of TCM worked/works it would be studied, refined, and used. To quote our alt-med article "Any alternative medicine with scientific evidence behind it is simply called medicine." The point? That if it works, there is no need to suppress it, as utilizing it is more efficient and profitable. One last thing, "When it comes to cancer, the best approach is prevention." seems to be a mere rephrasing of "Treat the cause, not the symptom", a fallacious argument you should probably read up on. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I find it absolutely amusing that you can sit at a computer, connected to the internet, on a website hosted by servers, and complain that science is "based upon a naive faith". Without science, without rationalism, without materialism, you'd be living in a mud hut in your own excrement, living under a feudal lord who would take anything he damn well pleased from you (including your children and/or spouse), while if you became seriously ill a tribal priest would chant over your prone form as you potentially died a slow painful death. Without the scientific method there would be none of the technology you enjoy, none. Your life would be shorter, more painful, more miserable. But of course you have an excuse as to why that explanation isn't so, don't you? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

"When it comes to cancer, the best approach is prevention.'

I had a friend suffer from leukemia and you're telling me the best solution is preventing it somehow. 🖕 Chemotherapy saved his life, and you have to gall to tell me that chemotherapy is very bad, science kills people and tell me that alternative medicine should come anywhere near cancer. I'm glad you were nowhere near that clinic my friend was in. Go stick an acupuncture needle up your ass. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 16:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I find it absolutely appalling that the best you can do is to censor my posts, my sources, insult me and make baseless assertions. I take no comfort in using a computer showing me a world of mass extinction, mass pollution and of ever increasing probabilities of nuclear Armageddon. While Europeans were "living in mud huts in their own excrement", the Chinese wore silk and drunk out of porcelain cups. Other civilisations did quite well without Western science: Egyptian, Inca, Maya, Khmer, and so on. It seems you would do well to get some sort of an education and get at least to the level of the scientists and philosophers of science Paul Feyerabend and Alfred North Whitehead that you love to dismiss for no other reason than a personal bias. Of maturity, rationalism and objectivity, you do not seem to have much more than that of mediocre, spotty teenagers.

"I had a friend suffer from leukemia and you're telling me the best solution is preventing it somehow. 🖕 Chemotherapy saved his life, and you have to gall to tell me that chemotherapy is very bad"

Is that the same "anecdotal evidence" that is dismissed when it is provided in support of TCM or is it simply double standard?

If prevention is useless, I suggest you should take up cigarette smoking and cover your face with radium cream, as was strongly recommended up until the 1950s by doctors trained in evidence based medical science.

Strange how all the source provided in evidence that the US Army has indeed a lot to do with medical research have been censored from my previous post.

With barely 150 years of experience, "evidence based medical science" pretends to know better than what "anecdotal evidence based medical empiricists" have taken over 3,000 years to gather and understand. What a joke!!!!

Make no mistake, your lives will be cut short by the unstoppable collapse of science based industrial civilisation that, with its 400 years lifespan, will be the shortest lived human endeavour ever. Within a couple of decades, human beings will begin to drop like flies from famine due to crop failure, from epidemics due to new strains of bacteria and viruses, and from endless resource wars.^{— Unsigned, by: 2403:6200:8856:ba76:c947:969a:40f:bdba / talk 05:30, 15 July 2019}

Blablabla “censorship” blablabla “big meanies” blablabla appeal to tradition blablabla “you nasty hypocrites” blablabla Big Pharma conspiracy theory blablabla “upcoming apocalypse of the bad West” blabla. Well, BoN, your longwinded Gish gallop was simply collapsed, so anyone masochistic enough to slog through it can, but it doesn’t clog up the talk page or mess with the format for the rest of the readers.

Also: On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

If you think the Mayan civilization is a model civilization, then you must be totally on board with running a barbed thread through your tongue and piercing your penis to release blood. Egyptians also believed using substances made of crocodile crap was good for contraception. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 06:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

And about how "classy" Chinese civilization was compared to the mostly nomadic groups (if yoy mean like ancient China), porcelain and silk were luxury items. China in history was nearly constantly a Crab Nebula's distance away from the egalitarian conjuration, and most Chinese people certainly languished in huts and were constantly hungry, victims of relentless exploitation from the rich and powerful. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 06:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Ancient China was like modern North Korea, just with more civil wars and invasions. The rich and favored were showered in luxury, while basically everyone else lived short crappy lives. (It also doesn't help that China has always been culturally authoritarian, but again, no doubt the BoN has a justification for why this either isn't so or is acceptable.) My point about the computer was that it and associated technology is a direct result of science, not eastern woo-woo, so it's a more than a touch hypocritical for you to complain about how bad science is while enjoying the fruits of said field. As for "western science" that isn't a real thing. There is only science, which is practiced by scientists, using the scientific method. It doesn't matter from which arbitrary social boundary said scientists originate or live. Finally, you haven't been censored, which you would know if your immediate reaction was experimentation and an interest in discovery, rather than simple knee-jerk outrage. (Which by the way is kind of dumb since you were the one who came onto a skeptic/science/rationalist/atheist website to let it's occupants know how wrong they are about your favorite subject. Did you think that some level of moderation wouldn't be employed?) ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 10:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

BoN did shut up, but I'm not sure about "culturally" authoritarian is wholly accurate. The mandate of heaven justified overthrowing rulers and starting new dynasties, and its culture is more collective than American culture, valuing modesty and group conformity to promote harmony (so I guess communism is a good philosophy for them). --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 06:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Everything I don't like is Hitler the scientific method

Cherry picking information is not a sign of rationality. Focusing only on the religious customs of the Mayan civilisation all the while ignoring other achievements in the field of astronomy for example is akin to say that the USA isn't a model civilisation because of massive inequalities, particularly when it comes to access to medical care, not to mention a propensity for frequent blood letting rituals known as mass shootings, the appalling treatment of First Nation People -- injected with syphilis and provided with typhus infected blankets to name only a few examples of the benefits provided by scientific medical care -- the treatment of US soldiers exposed to radiations, lethal chemical agents, LSD and God knows what else, the systematic tearing up of treaties or the utter moral corruption of the pedophile political elite enjoying fucking little boys and girls on Epstein's paradise island. Take a good look outside your doorstep where thousands of homeless are dying in the streets in their own feces. Hell! These guys don't even have a hut to live in.

You are nothing more than a bunch of psychopathic, authoritarian, perverted, hypocritical, lying fucks... and I am being polite. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2403:6200:8856:ba76:c947:969a:40f:bdba / talk 08:56, 15 July 2019}

Sure you are. Quick question, how exactly will TCM help with all of this? — Oxyaena ^Harass 09:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, lol that they think science based medicine only exists in the United States. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention the absurdity of including the provision of ”typhus infected blankets” as a part of ”scientific medical care”(!) O_o

I mean, it was not like it was either a scientific experiment, an attempt at observing the infection and spread of typhus, or any sort of medical treatment. The examples in general seem to be randomly PIDOOMAed whataboutism so off kilter that they end up as a Gish gallop of non sequiturs. It kind of fascinating to observe in a sort of train wreck’ish way... But as Oxyaena pointed out, it’s more than unclear what the hell all of it has to do with TCM. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Omg it's only a matter of time we get to 🥁🥁🥁🥁 Holocaust comparisons! The scientific method gave us Hitler! Or maybe we are like Hitler based on those incoherent buzzwords that BoN thinks is just part of being polite.

ScepticWombat: It's just attempt to poison the well, tar the scientific method to somehow boost the credence of alternative methods. Like fashioning juice from pulverized long gallbladder and spreading it all over your hair is somehow a solution to income inequality, disease, and wars. BoN is using the US's lack of healthcare access as a bad part of the scientific method, like people who can't benefit from scientific medicine is a fault from the method that make the medicine in the first place. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 17:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I hope the BoN has some rhino horns ready, because I have this cold and... — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Does your insurance cover it? I suppose not. That'll be only a few thousand dollars please. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 17:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I get the poisoning the well aspects, though I read it more as a misguided and inept attempt at cultural and societal critique that gets rolled into a defence of TCM (where it doesn’t belong, btw), when our BoN became frustrated that the more specific criticism of the article was refuted.

It kind of reminds me of how some of the more inept kind of popular fundamentalist apologists have difficulties staying on topic (that is, if they don’t simply bang on about the same point once it has been refuted) when seriously and consistently challenged on an issue. Note that I use “popular” here in its sense of attempting to target the mass audience of “the people”, not in the sense that these apologists necessarily have a lot of adherents. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Were you there? — Oxyaena ^Harass 07:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

How do you like them bananas? ScepticWombat (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I see the theme here: it's whataboutism mixed with the implication that the Chinese are the greatest civilization that ever existed and that everyone else is a filthy barbarian unworthy of breathing the same air as they do. Well then, if that's the case then why weren't they able to drive off the European civilizations on any of the occasions that they were exploited by them? And why haven't they outlawed Western medicine with all its so-called evil in their own country if TCM is so much better?

Before you call others psychopathic, authoritarian, perverted, hypocritical, lying fucks, look in a mirror and ask if those terms are just as applicable to yourself. Oh, and BoN- you might want to get off this site, the censors in your country might not like your exposure to Western propaganda.--Logos (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

While I sort of see your point, barely, maybe don't use the loss of wars as a sign of cultural inferiority. That's a big old is-should violation that has led to some of history's greatest atrocities. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed. Being a victim of relentless of invading and exploitation civilizations isn't a sign of weakness. Point to economic inequality, corrupt leaders, state of infrastructure, etc., But even then, these could be side products of invading countries. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 17:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair, though my main point was that in his mind TCM is good because China was a great civilization back in the Middle Ages. Plus, according to an IP locator service I found the BoN is actually from Thailand. Not like it makes said BoN less of a hypocrite given that they're the ones who still imprison people for criticizing the king, have had the fourth most coups of any country in the world, and has been carrying out many of the human rights violations he accused the US of doing for years. --Logos (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

He's a moronic bitch anyway. 🇷🇸 Serbian Arbiter (What would you have your arbiter do?) 16:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

/* Pangolins /

I snarkified something I saw in the Big Pedia pangolin article. Hopefully there will be a translation of the footnote sooner or later. Wigitsune (talk) 05:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I think your addition was confusing and did not really add anything to the page. Science comes before snark on RationalWiki. If you want to add more about Pangolins and COVID, you should explain what if any connection there is first. Bongolian (talk) 07:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)