Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

The lede needs to be revised

Hi everyone. I was searching about Traditional Chinese Medicine today and saw this very negatively worded description about TCM. The lede does not give a proper introduction to TCM and is backed up by an article that has only an impact factor of 1.17, which is quite low and most definitely cannot reflect the mainstream opinion. I made a change to the first paragraph to a more comprehensive and neutral description, and later it got reverted by a user because they think that my change is non-neutral, which is ridiculous. I was told later that we need reliable sources to back up a neutral description. Please respond with reliable sources so we can try to make a change.

It is worth noticing that many other traditional medicine branches like "traditional Japanese medicine", "traditional Korean medicine", "Ayurveda" (which is alternative medicine in India), etc all have very neutral descriptions, and some of these branches even are derived from Chinese medicine. If their lede can stay neutral, then the TCM lede should stay neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuangyanLi (talk • contribs) 03:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Have you got any policy based reasons to revise the lead? We appear to be following WP:LEAD and your contribution of unsupported commentary was rightfully reverted- Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 06:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

As stated in the "Intro revision" section, current reference 2 which is the Nature editorial is more suitable as a statement attributed to that particular editor, but not necessarily as statements of fact. Therefore, it can be misleading to place such statement as the very first sentence of the entire page, which is seen directly by anyone who Google searches "Traditional Chinese Medicine".

In addition, regarding your comment also in the "Intro revision" section, what evidence are you using to support the statement that "the most important thing about TCM is that it doesn't work"? GavinXLu (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

It has been described as, already in the article, is enough of an attribution. The level of acceptance from the scientific mainstream is extremely relevant context for the reader and should be at the top of the article. What google decides to put on their website is none of our business. MrOllie (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, The cited Nature editorial "Hard to swallow" has no citations/evidence of what it is saying, which is simply an opinion piece rather than a scientific article with evidence. It cannot represent the mainstream just because it's Nature. There are many more reliable secondary scientific articles about TCM that suggest its effectiveness. I really suggest you and a few other active reverters on the TCM article to investigate more into TCM before saying it is "pseudoscience". I can help you to get started here: "Traditional chinese medicine: an update on clinical evidence", "Understanding Traditional Chinese Medicine Therapeutics: An Overview of the Basics and Clinical Applications" GuangyanLi (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I guess we all need to investigate more into TCM until we agree with you, otherwise it is still not enough. "You do not know enough to judge this" is a common pro-pseudoscience talking point, also used by astrologers and homeopaths.

Actually, you have no idea how much we know about the TCM evidence. Maybe we know more than you do?

Back to article work: The Nature article is clearly marked as an editorial, and although it is used several times, what it is used for in the article is either uncontroversial (such as "TCM uses artemisia") or it has another, non-editorial source, or the statement is attributed.

We have loads of sources saying that TCM is full of pseudoscience, spread over the whole of the article. Denying that it is not would be silly; literature about pseudoscience regularly features concepts from TCM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this what Wiki is? Wow. A bunch of uninform people with no credential on the subject matter dictating on a topic that they have no credential on what-so-ever. Very disappointing. I will refrain from using Wiki from now on. K2wong (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

As I said avbove, We have loads of sources saying that TCM is full of pseudoscience. It is not our doing, it is the scientific consensus. You are not listening. But of course, not listening to things you disagree with is a precondition for belief in pseudoscience. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Is it really accurate to define TCM as an alternative medicine practice in a Western sense? The worldview of TCM is not historically an alternate, pseudoscientific version of Western medicine. It has been practiced for thousands of years, and it is based on a different understanding of reality. Wouldn’t it be appropriate to provide a leading context as to the historical and spiritually-influenced basis of these beliefs? To lead with pseudoscience in the description of TCM is inappropriate. An opening section similar to ‘Tai chi’ or ‘Qigong’ - both highly related facets of TCM, would be more appropriate. See also the opening to ‘Kampo’ on Wikipedia, which is the Japanese adaptation of TCM. I find it bizarre that the spiritually-infused healing art of TCM, practiced by millions worldwide, would fall under the umbrella of a Western “alternative medicine” pseudoscience on Wikipedia. This seems a bit dismissive and xenophobic. 216.59.168.223 (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Ayurveda is treated the same way. I think "pseudoscientific" is maybe the wrong word, but the idea that TCM has no scientific basis needs to be emphasised for WP:FRINGE reasons. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Understood re: fringe theory reasons, still seems that “pseudoscientific” is an inappropriate label for Traditional Chinese Medicine (and Ayurveda, for that matter). “No scientific basis” is different than pseudoscience, when it comes to beliefs w/ a different spiritual understanding of reality. Also consider “Qi”, Yin and yang”, and “Wuxing” articles— here is the same underlying Chinese philosophy that is deeply connected with TCM principles, yet presented here with a neutrality not found on “Traditional Chinese Medicine” or “Acupuncture” articles. I understand that the umbrella of medicine requires protection from fringe theories / dangerous beliefs, but clearly this isn’t simple “quackery” or snake oil… judging by the wealth of Wikipedia articles related to the underlying TCM philosophy & principles. 216.59.168.223 (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The difference is that 'Yin and yang' and 'Wuxing' are not presented as medical treatments or supported by sham 'scientific' papers. The context is different so the result is different - in particular, the best-available sources treat them differently, and Wikipedia follows that, as the site's content policies require. That's really all we do here - WP:NPOV means follow the viewpoint of the mainstream sources. We don't pick apart the definitions of terms like "pseudoscientific" ourselves to decide if the sources are correct or not, that is WP:NOR and WP:NOTFORUM territory, and is considered a misuse of the talk pages. MrOllie (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

“Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is an alternative medical practice drawn from traditional medicine in China.” So this article is specifically about the Western practice of TCM? In this article (in the Critique section) there is a distinction between “TCM” and “ medicine in traditional China.” Maybe the issue is, rather, that two topics are both being represented by one article. “Medicine in China” is a somewhat weak article about modern medicine in China. Nevertheless, apologies- did not intend to misuse the Talk page. 216.59.168.223 (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

So this article is specifically about the Western practice of TCM? No, it is about TCM as promoted by Chinese dictators since Mao, which is also practiced outside China. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I thought the article was from Nature, which has an impact factor of 69.5. But if what you said is true then yes 1.17 is quite bad. Even my friend got published in a publication with an impact factor of ~7. Alexysun (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts re: moving the offending sentence to the "Critique" section? Seems like that is already the place for it. Biscuitfrank (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Nope, we do as described at WP:LEDE. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in, @Tgeorgescu. Per the original comment, the existing lede is inconsistent with the link you shared, i.e. "It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view." What would you suggest to resolve this? Biscuitfrank (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

It is written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view. Keep in mind that on Wikipedia, neutral point of view is defined as representing views proportionately to the sources, not a false balance. MrOllie (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed - the existing lead is fine. No problem with wordsmithing, but there anything that needs removing or moving elsewhere. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This lead is false and misleading. Over 13,000 studies in 60 countries prove so.

There have actually been over 13,000 studies in 60 countries proving acupuncture is effective. Here are 30+ links to some of these studies. Not sure how your 2 references beat out 13,000+ References:

1. Ma Y, Dong M, Zhou K, et al. Publication Trends in Acupuncture Research: A 20-Year Bibliometric Analysis Based on PubMed. PLoS ONE 2016;11:e0168123. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0168123

2. Hempel S, Taylor SL, Solloway MR, et al. Evidence Map of Acupuncture. Washington (DC): : Department of Veterans Affairs  2014.

3. The Acupuncture Evidence Project – A Comparative Literature Review 2017 – Acupuncture.org.au. 2017;:1–81. https://www.acupuncture.org.au/resources/publications/the-acupuncture-evidence-project-a-comparative-literature-review-2017/

4. Birch S, Lee MS, Alraek T, et al. Overview of Treatment Guidelines and Clinical Practical Guidelines That Recommend the Use of Acupuncture: A Bibliometric Analysis. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine Published Online First: 18 June 2018. doi:10.1089/acm.2018.0092

5. Prasad V, Vandross A, Toomey C, et al. A decade of reversal: an analysis of 146 contradicted medical practices. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2013;88:790–8. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2013.05.012

6. Prasad V, Ioannidis JP. Evidence-based de-implementation for contradicted, unproven, and aspiring healthcare practices. Implement Sci 2014;9:1. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-9-1

7. Brownlee S, Chalkidou K, Doust J, et al. Evidence for overuse of medical services around the world. Lancet 2017;390:156–68. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32585-5

8. Makary MA, Daniel M. Medical error-the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ 2016;353:i2139. doi:10.1136/bmj.i2139

9. Corbett MS, Rice SJC, Madurasinghe V, et al. Acupuncture and other physical treatments for the relief of pain due to osteoarthritis of the knee: network meta-analysis. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 2013;21:1290–8. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2013.05.007

10. Dong W, Goost H, Lin X-B, et al. Treatments for shoulder impingement syndrome: a PRISMA systematic review and network meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015;94:e510. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000000510

11. Lewis R, FLCOM NHWPF, PhD AJS, et al. Comparative clinical effectiveness of management strategies for sciatica: systematic review and network meta-analyses. The Spine Journal 2015;15:1461–77. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2013.08.049

12. Zhu L, Ma Y, Deng X. Comparison of acupuncture and other drugs for chronic constipation: A network meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2018;13:e0196128. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0196128

13. Fan AY, Miller DW, Bolash B, et al. Acupuncture’s Role in Solving the Opioid Epidemic: Evidence, Cost-Effectiveness, and Care Availability for Acupuncture as a Primary, Non-Pharmacologic Method for Pain Relief and Management–White Paper 2017. Journal of Integrative Medicine2017;15:411–25. doi:10.1016/S2095-4964(17)60378-9

14. Verkhratsky A, Burnstock G. Biology of purinergic signalling: Its ancient evolutionary roots, its omnipresence and its multiple functional significance. Bioessays 2014;36:697–705. doi:10.1002/bies.201400024

15. Burnstock G. Purinergic signaling in acupuncture. Science 2014.

16. Goldman N, Chen M, Fujita T, et al. Adenosine A1 receptors mediate local anti-nociceptive effects of acupuncture. Nat Neurosci 2010;13:883–8. doi:10.1038/nn.2562

17. Huang M, Wang X, Xing B, et al. Critical roles of TRPV2 channels, histamine H1 and adenosine A1 receptors in the initiation of acupoint signals for acupuncture analgesia. Sci Rep 2018;8:6523. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-24654-y

18. Takano T, Chen X, Luo F, et al. Traditional Acupuncture Triggers a Local Increase in Adenosine in Human Subjects. The Journal of Pain 2012;13:1215–23. doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2012.09.012

19. Fried NT, Elliott MB, Oshinsky ML. The Role of Adenosine Signaling in Headache: A Review. Brain Sci 2017;7. doi:10.3390/brainsci7030030

20. Faas MM, Sáez T, de Vos P. Extracellular ATP and adenosine: The Yin and Yang in immune responses? Molecular Aspects of Medicine 2017;:1–11. doi:10.1016/j.mam.2017.01.002

21. Whiteside TL. Targeting adenosine in cancer immunotherapy: a review of recent progress. Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy 2017;17:527–35. doi:10.1080/14737140.2017.1316197

22. Masino SA, Kawamura M Jr., Cote JL, et al. Adenosine and autism: A spectrum of opportunities. Neuropharmacology 2013;68:116–21. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2012.08.013

23. Woods LT, Ajit D, Camden JM, et al. Purinergic receptors as potential therapeutic targets in Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropharmacology 2016;104:169–79. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2015.10.031

24. Burnstock G, Ralevic V, Perez DM. Purinergic Signaling and Blood Vessels in Health and Disease. Pharmacol Rev 2014;66:102–92. doi:10.1124/pr.113.008029

25. Burnstock G. Purinergic Signaling in the Cardiovascular System. Circulation Research 2017;120:207–28. doi:10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.309726

26. Burnstock G. Purinergic signalling in endocrine organs. Purinergic Signalling 2013;10:189–231. doi:10.1007/s11302-013-9396-x

27. Oliveira Á, Illes P, Ulrich H. Purinergic receptors in embryonic and adult neurogenesis. Neuropharmacology 2016;104:272–81. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2015.10.008

28. Burnstock G. Purinergic Signalling in the Gut. In: The Enteric Nervous System. Cham: : Springer International Publishing 2016. 91–112. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-27592-5_10

29. Borea PA, Gessi S, Merighi S, et al. Adenosine as a Multi-Signalling Guardian Angel in Human Diseases: When, Where and How Does it Exert its Protective Effects? Trends Pharmacol Sci 2016;37:419–34. doi:10.1016/j.tips.2016.02.006

30. Cho ZH, Hwang SC, Wong EK, et al. Neural substrates, experimental evidences and functional hypothesis of acupuncture mechanisms. Acta Neurol Scand 2006;113:370–7. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0404.2006.00600.x

31. Lund I, Lundeberg T. Mechanisms of Acupuncture. Acupuncture and Related Therapies Published Online First: 2016. doi:10.1016/j.arthe.2016.12.001

32. Vickers A, Goyal N, Harland R, et al. Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials. Control Clin Trials 1998;19:159–66.

33. Tian J, Zhang J, Ge L, et al. The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews from China and the USA are similar. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2017;85:50–8. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.12.004

34. McGauran N, Wieseler B, Kreis J, et al. Reporting bias in medical research – a narrative review. Trials 2010;11:37. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-11-37

35. Lee K, Bacchetti P, Sim I. Publication of clinical trials supporting successful new drug applications: a literature analysis. PLoS Med 2008;5:e191. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050191

36. Heneghan C, Mahtani KR, Goldacre B, et al. Evidence based medicine manifesto for better healthcare: A response to systematic bias, wastage, error and fraud in research underpinning patient care. Evidence-Based Medicine 2017;22:120–2. doi:10.1136/ebmed-2017-j2973repsources to use: Also, this Wikipedia lead helps prove that Wikipedia has an agenda to continue the massive industrial complexes that anti-human and greed based. 208.104.54.103 (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, this Wikipedia lead helps prove that Wikipedia has an agenda to continue the massive industrial complexes that anti-human and greed based—reply: "I can confidently say given that you reject the effectiveness of modern medicine and are invoking big pharma conspiracies that you are a crank, and that it's not worth wasting by time talking to you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)" tgeorgescu (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Not sure how your 2 references beat out 13,000+ In science, quality beats quantity. At least it should do so. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Wooden language

the Western reductionist and mechanistic approach to diseases—that's the wooden language of alt-med peddlers. What those words mean? That they're discontent with empirical science. And that they don't really have better science, but they're just trying to pull the wool over our faces. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Would you mind formulate your concern in plain English? I am not able to provive a replay if I do not have a clear explanation of the potertial issue.

Many thanks Safetystuff (talk) 02:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It means that the Western reductionist and mechanistic approach to diseases is the standard complaint of pseudoscientists about "Western" science. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that the authors writing these papers on Science and Nature are pseudoscientists?

I have referencing contributions from two prestegious journals, Science and Nature. You might want to raise this issue with these journals if you have strong argumenst proving they are pseudoscientists and their research is not reliable. I do not think Wikipedia is the right place for this judgment. Safetystuff (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It's standard pro-quackery jargon, borrowed from quantum flapdoodle.

The randomized, controlled trial design, however, has distinct limitations when applied to TCM, because TCM is holistic and conceptual, and it identifies and treats ‘syndromes’ rather than diseases. Same excuse as for why homeopathy cannot be tested through RCTs. Namely, RCTs throw sand in the gears, err, in the holism.

Gan c.s. speak of "mechanistic", but consider it a feature, not a bug.

Herbalome participants could postpone publishing positive results indefinitely, they just need to claim they need time in order to develop drug patents, which could otherwise be stolen by Western Big Pharma. See? Just claim it is a secret, and they can dodge criticism forever.

The paper from Nature Portfolio is advertisement. See WP:PROMO. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Reverted for now. There are the tone issues, which may be fixable, but the sourcing and weight issues are more difficult to overcome. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Yup, Gan c.s. do not seem to WP:V their claim, and interpreting the Herbalome paper is a tad difficult, since it is a dialogue between two opposite viewpoints, and the reader has to make up their own mind about which of those viewpoints is right. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

By reverting you are basically neglecting one view which is published on top scientific journals: Science and Nature. Is there any conflict of interest?

You might want to justify this action before making such a strong decision. This looks to me censure. The statements provided in the new version were supported by references so why are you deleting it? Safetystuff (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I did justify my action. Was there part of the explanation that you would like more detail on? To flip things around a bit, are you confident that all the sources you cited were high-quality, reliable sources? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The sources were clear and reputable so I have undo your change. Please discuss here before taking actions. If you have issue with the Nature and Science papers please explain what is the issue Safetystuff (talk) 05:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

One Nature source is an ad, and the other is an opinion piece ("Viewpoint"). One of the Science sources is a news article. The last source (this one), does not support the proposed article text. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Yup, according to Gan c.s. the "mechanistic" explanation is yet unavailable, but when it will be available, it will be something good, not something bad. That is, they are not opposed to mechanistic thinking, they just think that's too complicated at this time.

And I think the rules for sourcing need an explanation: according to WP:PARITY, the two sides of the dispute are not equal, so lower-quality sources are allowed for rendering the mainstream scientific position, but not for rendering the WP:PROFRINGE position. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I just want to remind you that Science is not based on democratic consent. If democratic consent is the backbone of Wikipedia then we need better than this if we want to use it to disseminate Science.

Just a small story from over 100y ago

"One hundred German physicists claim Einsteins theory of relativity is wrong." Einsteins reply was supposedly, "If I were wrong, it would only take one." Safetystuff (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

If the scientific consensus was that relativity was wrong, then Wikipedia, if it had been around then, would have reported that relativity was wrong. See WP:NOT. Brunton (talk) 09:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia was aiming to inform the public on many things including scientific progress. It seems the system is not built to provide unbiased information to the public. Pretty scary Safetystuff (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I just want to remind you that Science is not based on democratic consent Next time, please respond to what people actually say instead of what you are fantasizing they said. tgeorgescu talked about lower-quality sources, not about "democratic consent". But I understand that you need to use bad reasoning - you have no choice since there are no good reasons for your position. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I will ask colleagues from our Medical School for better references.

No need to be aggressive/rude as your colleague/friend just admitted that democratic consent is the rule on Wikipedia. So please avoid personal attacks as we are all here to share knowledge without an agenda. Aren't we?

p

Please refer to the previous reply I received of on the democratic consent on Wikipedia. No need to attack me as I am on Wikipedia to spread scientific knowledge. Sometimes the state of the art is not back or white and people have the right to know. Safetystuff (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a democracy. So, yes, it is about WP:CONSENSUS, but not a democratic one.

And Wikipedia is indeed biased, see WP:PSCI, WP:GEVAL, and WP:FRINGE.

Artemisinin has been objectively shown to work, but such success stories are few and far between. There could be tens of similar medicines hiding among TCM cures, but it would require thousands of billions USD to research them, and it would require Chinese medical scientists to deny for 99% of TCM cures that those are effective, which in present-day China seems like academic suicide. Being honest would mean quarrels with every TCM professor in the country, and would likely get that scientist arrested. Because, even if most of TCM is not effective, it is big business and brings a lot of money for the country. Being honest about TCM would mean the death of many lucrative enterprises. The Chinese government has the same attitude towards researching the truth about TCM as the Trump government had about researching the truth about anthropogenic global warming. The difference being that Trump could not get scientists arrested at whim. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Scientific questions are not resolved by platitudes and trivialities. You can talk about "black and white" or "not democratic" as much as you want, it still comes down to facts and sources. And it is still true that nobody said anything about "democratic consent". Stop using this straw man. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)