Comments on: The Tao of Chinese Medicine – I http://skepticblog.org/2008/11/02/tcm-1/ The official blog of the Skeptologists Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:33:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Sean http://skepticblog.org/2008/11/02/tcm-1/#comment-18369 Sean Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:00:44 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=220#comment-18369 Dear Yau-Man, This a great article. I have lived in China for over 3 years and sometimes find my skepticism for TCM is seen by my Chinese friends as an 'inability to really understand China or Chinese people'. This is frustrating when I try my best to learn Chinese and immerse myself in Chinese culture. When I see friends choosing TCM over western evidence-based medicine, my concerns are misconstrued as being anti-Chinese. I love China and want to understand it better but my skepticism is often greeted with a bit of hostility. My question is; are there any websites IN CHINESE that are skeptical of Chinese medicine. These would be good to forward onto Chinese friends. No-one is going to change their life-long (indoctrinated?) opinion overnight, but at least it may plant the seeds of change. Thanks Dear Yau-Man,

This a great article. I have lived in China for over 3 years and sometimes find my skepticism for TCM is seen by my Chinese friends as an ‘inability to really understand China or Chinese people’. This is frustrating when I try my best to learn Chinese and immerse myself in Chinese culture. When I see friends choosing TCM over western evidence-based medicine, my concerns are misconstrued as being anti-Chinese. I love China and want to understand it better but my skepticism is often greeted with a bit of hostility.

My question is; are there any websites IN CHINESE that are skeptical of Chinese medicine. These would be good to forward onto Chinese friends. No-one is going to change their life-long (indoctrinated?) opinion overnight, but at least it may plant the seeds of change. Thanks

]]> By: Dabizi http://skepticblog.org/2008/11/02/tcm-1/#comment-17147 Dabizi Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:56:49 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=220#comment-17147 Great articles - I lived in China for two years and one fall I got a cold (gan mao?) so, in the spirit of science I tried the TCM cure. I really just got worse, though I don't think the TCM is as fault as the cold just got worse and the TCM did not really do anything. When I told my Chinese coworkers and students their response was "foreigners must be different". Great articles – I lived in China for two years and one fall I got a cold (gan mao?) so, in the spirit of science I tried the TCM cure.

I really just got worse, though I don’t think the TCM is as fault as the cold just got worse and the TCM did not really do anything. When I told my Chinese coworkers and students their response was “foreigners must be different”.

]]> By: taoYEN http://skepticblog.org/2008/11/02/tcm-1/#comment-14476 taoYEN Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:05:32 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=220#comment-14476 TCM used an unsound system to develop cures. Sometimes those cures work. As people have already pointed out with many, MANY simple examples, this does not validate the unsound system used to create them. The fact that unscientific research leads to a conclusion that scientific research later explains does not mean the unscientific research is any less useless. When Newton formed the laws of gravity, it didn't matter that monkeys had already known that apples fell from trees, or that ancient civilizations had attributed it to the sun god etc. He discovered the scientific reason why the apple falls. All they had done is observed that the apple fell, and made up a nonsense explanation. Just as TCM observes that a very small percentage of their trial and error medicines work, and then make up a nonsense explanation as to why it works, then working backwards, defending their explanation by saying 'but look, it works! so our ki energy, yin yang bullcrap must be true!' FFS TCM used an unsound system to develop cures. Sometimes those cures work. As people have already pointed out with many, MANY simple examples, this does not validate the unsound system used to create them. The fact that unscientific research leads to a conclusion that scientific research later explains does not mean the unscientific research is any less useless. When Newton formed the laws of gravity, it didn’t matter that monkeys had already known that apples fell from trees, or that ancient civilizations had attributed it to the sun god etc. He discovered the scientific reason why the apple falls. All they had done is observed that the apple fell, and made up a nonsense explanation. Just as TCM observes that a very small percentage of their trial and error medicines work, and then make up a nonsense explanation as to why it works, then working backwards, defending their explanation by saying ‘but look, it works! so our ki energy, yin yang bullcrap must be true!’

FFS

]]> By: krovak http://skepticblog.org/2008/11/02/tcm-1/#comment-11346 krovak Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:07:57 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=220#comment-11346 you don't know much about what is chinese medicine about, do you? you don’t know much about what is chinese medicine about, do you?

]]> By: jazbo8 http://skepticblog.org/2008/11/02/tcm-1/#comment-10490 jazbo8 Thu, 30 Jul 2009 02:18:08 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=220#comment-10490 I hope you are not being serious ;-} - "serious TCM" is an oxymoron. At best, some TCM treatments may "work" due to the placebo effect, at worst, they kill the patient. More can be found in Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst's Trick Or Treatment?: Alternative Medicine on Trial. I hope you are not being serious ;-} – “serious TCM” is an oxymoron. At best, some TCM treatments may “work” due to the placebo effect, at worst, they kill the patient. More can be found in Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst’s Trick Or Treatment?: Alternative Medicine on Trial.

]]> By: Krovak http://skepticblog.org/2008/11/02/tcm-1/#comment-9770 Krovak Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:56:23 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=220#comment-9770 All you wrote looks nice, but when you look at the modern research, you will see that they sometimes "discover" things that can be easily explained by TCM or are basic part of that. But I know, TCM is pseudosicence - totally useles. Second: killing endangered species - even TCM progresses and recipes used in 15th century are not the sames as today. For example Militant Agnostic mentioned rhinoceros horn (XI YIAO) - it still figures in recipes, but it is replaced with horn of water buffalo which has similar properties. And also other problematic "herbs" are replaced in such way with it's equivalents. Thirdly: Of superiority of the "western medicine". Here in Slovakia former president became "sick" - perforation of large intestine, he was sucessfully operated and saved (western medicine of course). In few days also pneumonia join his troubles. When his doctor was asked wheter this two ilnesses can be conected somehow he said: "medical science does not know any connection between large intestine and lungs!" OK, the chinese "pseudoscience" knows that merely few thousand years :-P Both of this medicines are good for some purposes - chinese is more about prevention, slower and more subtle effects and western medicine is unmatched in traumatology, chirurgy and so on. Your experiences are mostly based on "old mums medicine" more than serious TCM. All you wrote looks nice, but when you look at the modern research, you will see that they sometimes “discover” things that can be easily explained by TCM or are basic part of that. But I know, TCM is pseudosicence – totally useles.
Second: killing endangered species – even TCM progresses and recipes used in 15th century are not the sames as today. For example Militant Agnostic mentioned rhinoceros horn (XI YIAO) – it still figures in recipes, but it is replaced with horn of water buffalo which has similar properties. And also other problematic “herbs” are replaced in such way with it’s equivalents.
Thirdly: Of superiority of the “western medicine”. Here in Slovakia former president became “sick” – perforation of large intestine, he was sucessfully operated and saved (western medicine of course). In few days also pneumonia join his troubles. When his doctor was asked wheter this two ilnesses can be conected somehow he said: “medical science does not know any connection between large intestine and lungs!” OK, the chinese “pseudoscience” knows that merely few thousand years :-P
Both of this medicines are good for some purposes – chinese is more about prevention, slower and more subtle effects and western medicine is unmatched in traumatology, chirurgy and so on. Your experiences are mostly based on “old mums medicine” more than serious TCM.

]]> By: Raoul http://skepticblog.org/2008/11/02/tcm-1/#comment-3902 Raoul Sat, 21 Feb 2009 07:04:34 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=220#comment-3902 I am reminded by the old adage that if all you have is a hammer then all you look for is nail. If all you have is a western , neutonian, mechanistic view of health then all you will look for is the same in treatment of whatever health problem you seek to address. Chinese Medicine is a complex 'poetic science' that comes from an entirley diferent paradym from western thinking. Just because you grew up in a chinese household does not make you qualified to comment on a medicine that requires practitioners to undergo 4 year bachelor degrees to practice. This is very bad example of the Halo effect being applied. If you dont know what that is then i suggest you look it up and comment on things you are qualified to comment on. I am reminded by the old adage that if all you have is a hammer then all you look for is nail.
If all you have is a western , neutonian, mechanistic view of health then all you will look for is the same in treatment of whatever health problem you seek to address.
Chinese Medicine is a complex ‘poetic science’ that comes from an entirley diferent paradym from western thinking.
Just because you grew up in a chinese household does not make you qualified to comment on a medicine that requires practitioners to undergo 4 year bachelor degrees to practice.
This is very bad example of the Halo effect being applied.
If you dont know what that is then i suggest you look it up and comment on things you are qualified to comment on.

]]> By: Sean Barkes http://skepticblog.org/2008/11/02/tcm-1/#comment-2982 Sean Barkes Tue, 27 Jan 2009 09:09:16 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=220#comment-2982 A very interesting article. From the excellence of the English, it seems that you must have been born and brought up in the West. If not, I wished that I had a command of a second language in the way you have :) I am left with one gaping question though: why does the Chinese goverment, leading the fastest growing economy and superpower on earth, continue to invest billions of Yuan in TCM? Is your lack of formal training in TCM, or maybe the eternal tendancy of humans to think that the grass is always greener on the other side, allowing you to miss something? A very interesting article. From the excellence of the English, it seems that you must have been born and brought up in the West. If not, I wished that I had a command of a second language in the way you have :)
I am left with one gaping question though: why does the Chinese goverment, leading the fastest growing economy and superpower on earth, continue to invest billions of Yuan in TCM? Is your lack of formal training in TCM, or maybe the eternal tendancy of humans to think that the grass is always greener on the other side, allowing you to miss something?

]]> By: | Petester.net http://skepticblog.org/2008/11/02/tcm-1/#comment-1470 | Petester.net Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:54:34 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=220#comment-1470 [...] THE TAO OF CHINESE MEDICINE - I [...] [...] THE TAO OF CHINESE MEDICINE – I [...]

]]> By: al http://skepticblog.org/2008/11/02/tcm-1/#comment-1286 al Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:28:53 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=220#comment-1286 i agree with ryan: taoists and confucian probably didn't invent TCM. i respect chan's background and knowledge but what he actually debunks contains only a portion of TCM, which is not widely supported or applied universally in Chinese communities. As any controversial theory, there are tenable arguments as well as weak ones in it, so putting TCM as a whole up to opprobrium is not a fair act. i agree with ryan: taoists and confucian probably didn’t invent TCM. i respect chan’s background and knowledge but what he actually debunks contains only a portion of TCM, which is not widely supported or applied universally in Chinese communities. As any controversial theory, there are tenable arguments as well as weak ones in it, so putting TCM as a whole up to opprobrium is not a fair act.

]]>