4 ms·

Traditional medicine that is shown to be effective is no longer traditional. It’s modern medicine.

paraditedc 8y ago
That not what "traditional" means. Traditional dance or traditional costumes don't become modern no matter how "effective" they are. "Traditional" simply means TCM hasn't changed much over the years.
- zazen 8y ago
  The point is, the parts of traditional medicine that work are adopted by modern medicine. Meaning, although they're still part of traditional medicine, they're no longer distinctive of traditional medicine. Traditional medicine is distinct from modern medicine only by virtue of the parts that don't work. This is what is meant by the "traditional medicine that works is called medicine" soundbite. The soundbite on its own condenses the argument very imperfectly, and people should be wary of using it.
  - paraditedc 8y ago
    Please educate yourself with the term TCM (traditional Chinese medicine, 中药) before making such condescending comments. It's a very specific branch of medicine, not related to the generic English term "traditional medicine". Your argument, to a Chinese person, is equivalent to "JavaScript is old because Java is old." It makes no sense at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_medicine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_medicine Edit: It's also worth noting that in Chinese, TCM is simply 中医, which literally means Chinese medicine. I'm not sure who decided to add the "traditional" in front, but it's not actually how it's called in China. > Traditional medicine is distinct from modern medicine only by virtue of the parts that don't work. If you say it this way, then maybe we should stop using the term TCM and just call it its original name "Chinese medicine" so we can both be happy.
tim333 8y ago
Dunno - stuff like acupuncture works for pain relief but is still part of TCM. If you have a bad back it probably has a lot less side effects than being put on opioids as is common in the US.
- lsc 8y ago
  I was reading a few years back that they didn't have anything like double-blind studies on chiropractic medicine, in part 'cause double blind studies are much more difficult for procedures than for pills. I mean, I'm not claiming to be an expert here or anything, it's just that last time I read up on that sort of thing it sounded like there was no evidence that chiropractic medicine or acupuncture was more than just placebo. Do you have citations?
  - tomhoward 8y ago
    The hard thing about all of this is that, as you pointed out, studies are hard to do. Even if they were funded to the same level as pharmaceuticals, it would be much harder to make conclusive findings. But in the absence of huge companies with profit motives or government bodies with political motives, there's not much funding around for thorough studies. But some examples of where practices from TCM and CAM are achieving recognition are: - The Nobel Prize awarded to Tu Youyou for finding artemisinin effective for treating malaria [1] - A recent NIH review finding acupuncture, yoga and other non-drug therapies effective for common pain conditions [2] - A study of a chiropractic technique to reduce the physiological effects of emotional stress/trauma [3] But aside from these studies, surely the market is at least somewhat of an indicator of some level of benefit. Economists generally regard consumers of being capable of making rational decisions about how to spend their money in ways that most benefit them. Of course it's not a water-tight rule, but nor is it completely false. Yet many people dismiss the entire CAM industry as being fuelled by nothing but stupidity, and dismiss the possibility that at least some of the industry's customers are capable of making rational spending decisions when it comes to their health. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_Youyou https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_Youyou [2] https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-review-finds-nondrug-approaches-effective-treatment-common-pain-conditions https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-review-fin... [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28181091 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28181091

That not what "traditional" means. Traditional dance or traditional costumes don't become modern no matter how "effective" they are. "Traditional" simply means TCM hasn't changed much over the years.

zazen 8y ago
The point is, the parts of traditional medicine that work are adopted by modern medicine. Meaning, although they're still part of traditional medicine, they're no longer distinctive of traditional medicine. Traditional medicine is distinct from modern medicine only by virtue of the parts that don't work. This is what is meant by the "traditional medicine that works is called medicine" soundbite. The soundbite on its own condenses the argument very imperfectly, and people should be wary of using it.
- paraditedc 8y ago
  Please educate yourself with the term TCM (traditional Chinese medicine, 中药) before making such condescending comments. It's a very specific branch of medicine, not related to the generic English term "traditional medicine". Your argument, to a Chinese person, is equivalent to "JavaScript is old because Java is old." It makes no sense at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_medicine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_medicine Edit: It's also worth noting that in Chinese, TCM is simply 中医, which literally means Chinese medicine. I'm not sure who decided to add the "traditional" in front, but it's not actually how it's called in China. > Traditional medicine is distinct from modern medicine only by virtue of the parts that don't work. If you say it this way, then maybe we should stop using the term TCM and just call it its original name "Chinese medicine" so we can both be happy.

tim333 8y ago

Dunno - stuff like acupuncture works for pain relief but is still part of TCM. If you have a bad back it probably has a lot less side effects than being put on opioids as is common in the US.

lsc 8y ago
I was reading a few years back that they didn't have anything like double-blind studies on chiropractic medicine, in part 'cause double blind studies are much more difficult for procedures than for pills. I mean, I'm not claiming to be an expert here or anything, it's just that last time I read up on that sort of thing it sounded like there was no evidence that chiropractic medicine or acupuncture was more than just placebo. Do you have citations?
- tomhoward 8y ago
  The hard thing about all of this is that, as you pointed out, studies are hard to do. Even if they were funded to the same level as pharmaceuticals, it would be much harder to make conclusive findings. But in the absence of huge companies with profit motives or government bodies with political motives, there's not much funding around for thorough studies. But some examples of where practices from TCM and CAM are achieving recognition are: - The Nobel Prize awarded to Tu Youyou for finding artemisinin effective for treating malaria [1] - A recent NIH review finding acupuncture, yoga and other non-drug therapies effective for common pain conditions [2] - A study of a chiropractic technique to reduce the physiological effects of emotional stress/trauma [3] But aside from these studies, surely the market is at least somewhat of an indicator of some level of benefit. Economists generally regard consumers of being capable of making rational decisions about how to spend their money in ways that most benefit them. Of course it's not a water-tight rule, but nor is it completely false. Yet many people dismiss the entire CAM industry as being fuelled by nothing but stupidity, and dismiss the possibility that at least some of the industry's customers are capable of making rational spending decisions when it comes to their health. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_Youyou https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_Youyou [2] https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-review-finds-nondrug-approaches-effective-treatment-common-pain-conditions https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-review-fin... [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28181091 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28181091