Was reading about Wong Fei Hung today and his style of kung fu he was famous for. But he was also a physician doing TCM. Most of my knowledge of TCM is like acupuncture, moxibustion, and herbs and the like.

Does the CPC police this, not letting people get away with snake oil salesmen who say they can cure cancer with herbs. Or is it encouraged alongside western medicine?

  • AF_R [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    It’s quackery and the CPC should take harsher measures against it.

    Look at Korean Traditional Medicine and the Korean health industry to see where entertaining this antisocial behavior leads. (note I said health industry, not healthcare industry. Gongjindan will cure all your diseases.) people get doctorates in this bullshit and are considered extremely wise and productive members of society. They’re called “doctor” and run practices for fucks sake.

    We already have a term for studying the effects of plant based compounds and developing medicines and treatments from them

    It’s called science.

    • Muinteoir_Saoirse [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      TCM is a science in China, though. It is put through the same clinical trials as laboratory pharmaceuticals. It is researched with the same scientific method. China just isn’t dismissive of generations of anecdotal evidence and the eradication of Indigenous medicinal knowledge like colonial medicine is.

      Anecdotal evidence, I may add, is not a negative thing for doctors to consider. For instance, there is very little actual clinical research on trans hormone therapies. Especially with regards to secondary or tertiary treatments, like progesterone. Anecdotal evidence of the effectiveness of progesterone in breast development is the primary reason affirming doctors are willing to prescribe it, despite the lack of clinical evidence.

      The answer isn’t to denigrate treatments and medications that haven’t been thoroughly studied, but to increase the amount of study.

      • Keld [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        TCM is a science in China, though. It is put through the same clinical trials as laboratory pharmaceuticals. It is researched with the same scientific method. China just isn’t dismissive of generations of anecdotal evidence and the eradication of Indigenous medicinal knowledge like colonial medicine is.

        This is bullshit. I’m sorry this is some noble savage bullshit. Tu Youyou won her nobel prize, that ks the grain of truth in this. But there is no scientific basis for prescribing tiger bones, turtle plastron and hornets nest for anything. These did not and do not go through the same testing as actual medicinr, and we know that because if they did we would have scientific evidence for their efficaciousness.

        • Infamousblt [any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          Can you show me scientific / published papers that show empirically that these things don’t have any medicinal effect?

          If so, then cool yes you’re correct. If not then it hasn’t been studied yet, and so you don’t actually know.

          “Traditional medicine doesn’t work and if it does it would just be called medicine” is a quite stealthy form of racism that I’m honestly quite surprised to see here.

          • Keld [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            That’s… not… how… anything works. You need to provide evidence that it does, the people who believe a thing is efficacious need to prove that it works. Which some of them have done, and that’s why it’s medicine, that’s how Tu Youyou won her nobel prize. But there hasn’t been proof of tiger bone or turtle plastron actually work. That’s the problem.

            But even ignoring your totally ridiculous inversion of how things work, we do actually test these things sometimes. Cochrane has 113 articles on traditional Chinese medicine.

            yes you’re correct

            Thank you, yes I am.

            I am genuinely disappointed in this community now, having seen this thread. I think less of this place now.

            • Infamousblt [any]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Removed this bit because it was slightly rude to the racist

              I’m not saying it does or doesn’t work. I don’t know. I am not Chinese. I don’t have the cultural or historical context behind it. I don’t read or speak Chinese. I’m not going to go tell anyone in China that it does or does not work because of all of the above.

              I’m just once again asking people to slow their roll when applying a one size fits all approach to the entire breadth of human culture and knowledge. That’s it. Apparently that’s offensive to you somehow.

              • Keld [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                13
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                The first (and only) step in the scientific process is “published paper.” There’s actually no other steps. No observations, no hypothesis, nothing. Science actually just magically happens.

                That’s not even a non sequitur. That is less than that somehow. You genuinely need to step back and do better.

                I’m just once again asking people to slow their roll when applying a one size fits all approach to the entire breadth of human culture and knowledge. That’s it. Apparently that’s offensive to you somehow.

                Whether tiger bones cure arthritis is an objective question with an objective answer and that answer is no.

                • Infamousblt [any]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  No, you’re right, that was slightly rude so I’ll do what I should have started with and remove that and just report your racism and move on. Thanks for encouraging me to be better

                  • BattleshipPokemon [he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    14
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    it’s actually racist to not believe King Charles III and his court alchemist’s ancestral knowledge dating back to druidic times of acupuncture, herbal tinctures, coffee enemas, fruit juice and potions of greater healing is better at treating prostate cancer than chemotherapy

                    literally every day on here people are doing the “thing - thing, china matt” stuff; calling people racist for not going along is just another layer of ridiculousness

            • Infamousblt [any]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              I suppose I didn’t quite phrase it right. The point I’m trying to make is that the scientific process starts with “hmm that’s interesting” or “hmm I wonder about.” One way that a lot of modern medical science continues to grow is “hmm it’s interesting that people have done this thing for thousands of years, I wonder why.” Sometimes it leads to “wow, there’s something to that” and sometimes it leads to “actually that’s bogus” but throwing it all away just because it hasn’t been studied yet is wrong and isn’t how science works to begin with. I’m not saying that something definitely works simply because it hasn’t been studied, but until something that people have anecdotally done for thousands of years is properly studied, we don’t really know if there’s something to it or not. There is a lot behind cultural apocryphal knowledge, societies don’t typically don’t do things a certain way “just because.”

              Hopefully this makes more sense.