![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
It's entirely appropriate to report common beliefs in an encyclopedia article, even if they have little foundation, but I think the following may actually not be true:
From what I understand, one of the largest black markets in China is for Western pharmaceuticals, and Chinese herbalists make most of their money from the U.S. and other foreign markets. -- LDC
Reply to above: I seriously doubt the writer above is a mainland Chinese from the way he talks. At best he only fits the description of a "banana man" as said by the late Chinese premeir Chou-En-Lai. This is a term to describe someone with yellow skin like a banana, otherwise inside it is all white i.e. completely westernised in thought and hence ignorant what is true Chinese culture is about.
Please do not remove red links--I am working on them. Thanks. heidimo 22:36, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
To say that TCM has absolutely no scientific basis is a bit far-fetched. Take a look at http://www.healthy.net/asp/templates/article.asp?PageType=article&ID=1278#The%20Physiology%20of%20Traditional%20Chinese%20Medicine, http://www.ucihealth.com/News/Releases/Acupuncture.htm. Research is still ongoing and we can say that much scientific basis has yet to be discovered, if at the same time we say these remedies work.-- Jia ng 08:09, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I didn't say it has no scientific basis - I said that Western science has failed to detect any material basis for its central principles (Qi etc). I was very careful how I phrased this because I knew the WP thought-police would be onto me very quickly for challenging such a sacred cow as the superiority of non-western thought in all things. Adam 08:13, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Jiang, I am really surprised that someone who is both scientifically trained and (correct me if I'm wrong) of Chinese descent seems to know so little about this subject. There is a perfectly good scientific explanation for the (very limited) beneficial effects of acupuncture (it's to do with gate theory). The issue is not whether some TCM techniques "work" - of course they do. The issue is with the underlying explanation of why they work: Qi and all that, which makes no biological sense and cannot be either verified or tested empirically. But this is really only a side issue. The real difference between Western medicine and all pre-modern medicine is the discovery of infection, and the resulting breakthroughs in disease control and public health, as well as later developments such as oncology. No pre-modern medicine can do anything in these areas. Adam 08:42, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Adam's text ignores the prevailing view that TCM and Western medicine can be complementary - the former for chronic diseases and the latter for more immediate emergencies. It states that just because TCM by itself failed to increase living standards over those using western medicine, TCM does not work. This position is illogical. Yout "western" doctors (white middle aged males living in Silicon Valley) are referring their patients to the acupuncturist. -- Jia ng 08:16, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
That is most certainly not the prevailing view of the great majority of Western doctors and scientists - Jiang's corner of California may be an exception but that does not surprise me much. More generally, if my section is edited in way Fuzheado suggests, we will have a first half completely uncritical of TCM, and a second half full of the usual WP tortured "NPOV" sentences. Much better to have two parts of the article which disagree with each other but which are in overall balance (yin and yang, perhaps?) Adam 08:23, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Also Jiang misunderstands the comment about living standards. I'm sure he understands the relationship between the rise of capitalism and the scientific revolution of which western scientific medicince is part. The point I was making was about the standards by which the validity of a system of medicine should be judged. All pre-modern medicine fails by those standards, not just TCM. Adam 08:32, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
In any case, the issue is not whether you and I agree about TCM, but what the article should say. The article as it stood was a straightforward paean of praise for TCM. All I did was add a section setting out the alternative viewpoint. Adam 08:45, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
To take Fuzheado's points one at a time:
Aha, now RK is here the real fun will start - no more Dr Nice Guy. He makes me look like a hippy. Adam 15:27, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
My remark above about RK may be a little flippant, but I think my debate with Jiang and Fuzheado (see above) shows that I take this issue seriously. Of course there is a conflict between TCM (and all pre-modern medical systems) and western science-based medicine. See my comments about AIDS above. This is a real issue for many people, and clarity of thought and word is required. That is why I intervened in this article in the first place ( Thoth knows I have enough arguments running elsewhere to keep me busy.) I don't think that conflict needs to be expressed in the article in an antagonistic way, and I don't believe that my edits do so. In my debates here, I give as good as I get. Adam 04:01, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I hardly know where to begin with such breathtaking ethnocentrism. If you want to believe that China is a Western country, that there is no difference between Chinese and Western culture and civilisation, and no dichotomy between TCM and Western medicine, I wish you well arguing that position with any well-informed Chinese you happen to meet. Let me know what you do next time you get acute appendicitis, by the way. Adam 04:30, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I've given the conversation time to settle for one main reason -- Adam, your repuatation precedes you. So I didn't want to escalate without thinking carefully about things first. However, your comments really do test the boundaries of constructive interaction. To wit, AC:I could have said "modern" instead of western but you would still have objected. Your arrogance, intentional or not, of supposing to know my reaction is breathtaking. Modern and Western are not the same, and my comments would have been drastically different. But to get to real matters.
If you need evidence that it doesn't have to be "us vs. them" or "East vs. West", come and visit the city I'm in now -- Hong Kong. This city is the most clear example of East and West coexisting and complementing each other. It's perhaps the mantra of this place, not just in medicine, but in all cultural, economic and social aspects. (After all, this is where the eclectic mix of X.O. brandy, abalone, Kjeldsen's butter cookies, pork floss and Rocher chocolates are given as Chinse New Year gifts.) Walk down any crowded street and it's a mix of modern pharmacies and traditional herbal Chinese remedies. People here have public "modern" healthcare, and they use it. And many intersperse it with traditional Chinese wellness techniques. You have practitioners in one field who refer patients to use the other type of medicine. It's not an either-or situation.
Another problem with this debate is that TCM is not a single entity -- many people trust in the herbology, some in acupuncture, fewer in bonesetting. Many folks who find TCM useful don't believe in the five elements mentioned in the article, but find the herbal tonics and teas do boost immune systems or help with enzyme and hormonal balances, in addition to their use of modern clinical medicine.
The original "Western views of..." section presents "Western" as panacea and TCM as voodoo-like, which is inaccurate, unreferenced, dangerously broad and simplistic. There are many variations and nuances in modern and TC medicine, and keeping that section as originally written brings down the article's credibility and usefulness. Fuzheado 05:01, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I went out of my way in my text to say that western medicine does not regard TCM as worthless and that some of its methods do work (though not for the reasons TCM traditional practitioners believed). I don't believe that western medicine is a panacaea, and I certainly didn't say so. If the word "substandard" is now in the text, I didn't put it there. "Voodoo-like"? Hmmm, if this article was about
Haitian traditional medicine I bet you wouldn't make such a pejorative remark.
Adam 05:15, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I humbly disagree with you. There is a Western intellectual tradition, and nearly all of what we now call "modern" science, including medical science, grew out of that tradition. There are also a number of non-Western intellectual traditions, of which the Chinese is one. Nothing I wrote makes any value judgements about any of those traditions, it simply describes how the Western tradition views non-Western forms of medical practice: it views them as unscientific, resting on custom and authority rather than on research - just as Western medicine did until the 17th century, when Hippocrates and Galen were the only source of medical authority. Adam 05:31, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
In the face of such ridiculous caricaturing of what I have actually said, I am withdrawing from this argument. There always comes such a point in WP arguments. If anyone wants to make edits to my text, they are of course free to do so, and then we can debate specific points. Until then, good night. Adam 11:08, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Well I appreciate that sentiment. Adam 05:10, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Removed this since I don't know think that this is true.....
Who do you think there are Western-style hospitals and medical schools all over China? Adam 05:21, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Removed this since it isn't true.....
You can argue that TCM is not peer reviewed, but you can't plausibly argue that most of it is taught in secret. User:Roadrunner
Also, I think that Adam as a limited view of what Chinese doctors do.
This is also not clear to me
I need to look at my sources, but I do remember reading somewhere that life expectancy in China in 1750's was considerably higher than Europe. This isn't necessarily due to Chinese medicine (i.e. triple cropping of rice helped), but it does mean that this argument doesn't work.
"Proponents of TCM claim that they can detect and manipulate these energies, but they can only demonstrate this to fellow believers. This is analagous to people who believe in God, and claim that they can detect God. In both cases, only believers agree, while no firm proof actually exists.
- + - Most doctors and scientists hold that people who claim to sense such energies are deceiving themselves with magical thinking"
The only people who have detected gravity are believers in it ;) Your argument makes no sense. Once people have verified something, they believe in it. If they successfully prove it to someone else, they necessarily believe in it as well. Those who don't believe in it clearly aren’t convinced. There is clearly a positive correlation between having seen proof, and belief in a certain concept. Obvious stuff here, lol.
Most Doctors? What on earth? Have you seen a survey of "most doctors"? Do you have any idea of what % of earths doctors are Chinese? Or Indian? Or Malaysian? The ethnocentrism in your POV is shocking. Even if what you meant by "most doctors" was maybe "conventional medical wisdom among the physicians association of great Britain" or some such, I'd request a citation, and a clearer wording. But the suggestion that your musings amount to the opinions of "most doctors" seems dishearteningly unacademic to me Jack 05:37, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Incidentally, I'm personally very skeptical of Chinese medicine, but most of my edits were to remove things that just don't seem to me to be true (i.e. the prevalence of Chinese medicine in China, and the amount of secrecy association with TCM).
The article seems fail to mention the current situation of TCM developments. For one thing, in China and in Canada, a person has to have some western medical trainings before getting the TCM license. Also, modern TCM research is directed towards integration with mainstream western medical science. wshun 05:46, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
In other words it is "western medicine with Chinese characteristics" which I think proves my point. Anyway, there are some battles at Wikipedia that can't be won, and arguing against people who think that everything non-western and traditional is automatically superior to everything western and scientific is one of them. I meant to remove this article from my watchlist a while ago and now I am doing so. I wish you all luck when you get acute appendicitis. Adam 05:50, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
http://www.worldscinet.com/ajcm/ajcm.shtml
Among the articles are....
Jing-Tian Xie, Han H. Aung, Ji An Wu, A. S. Attele and Chun-Su Yuan
Hiroshi Nagasawa, Katsuto Watanabe and Hideo Inatomi
Duo Chen, Chun Fu Wu, Li Huang and Zhuo Ning
Tsutomu Nakada, Kenji Watanabe, Guang-bi Jin, Kazuo Toriizuka and Toshihiko Hanawa
Chun-Ching Lin, Lean-Teik Ng, Jenq-Jer Yang and Yu-Fang Hsu
Yu-Jen Ko, Wen-Tsuan Hsieh, Yueh-Wern Wu and Wen-Chuan Lin
Y. Kurono, M. Egawa, T. Yano and K. Shimoo
J. H. Lin, L. S. Wu, Y. L. Wu, C. S. Lin and N. Y. J. Yang
Young Youn Kim, Jung Mi Choi, Soo Yong Kim, Sang Kyu Park, Seung Heun Lee and Kun Ho Lee
Jongbae Park, Hi-Joon Park, Hye-Jung Lee and Edzard Ernst
This is also a very questionable statement....
For example, the Chinese theory of diseases of the lung were that they were caused by "evil qi" which was inhaled by the patient. That doesn't sound like it hasn't been demonstrated, and "evil qi" in this case can clearly been seen by a microscope.
Another situation would be a broken bone, a Chinese medicial practioner would feel the broken bone, say "your qi is out of balance" and through a series of manipulations bring your qi back into balance by setting the bone.
Changed RK's edits, because they aren't true. Yes, if you go to Chinatown, the TCM people their might whisper mumble-jumbo about qi being a special outside force. If you go to China and talk to TCM practioners there, most won't.
The problem here is that TCM occupies a *completely* different niche in China than it does in the West.
I removed this:
In addition, Western practioners in TCM in contrast to those in China, are almost never licensed and are not required to undergo a rigourous academic program. This allows practioners in the West to make extravagant claims that they would never do in China.
What is this saying? To practice TCM in the West requires 3 or 4 years of intensive schooling and passing a board exam in order to get licensed. Now, if you are an MD it is true you do not need training or licensing in TCM in order to perform TCM procedures, but I don't think that is what this phrase is saying. Why do people keep posting outrageous lies to discredit TCM on the Wikipedia? If TCM is really based on a bunch of woo-woo crap, then you shouldn't have to lie about it to make your point. heidimo 17:54, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
It's entirely appropriate to report common beliefs in an encyclopedia article, even if they have little foundation, but I think the following may actually not be true:
From what I understand, one of the largest black markets in China is for Western pharmaceuticals, and Chinese herbalists make most of their money from the U.S. and other foreign markets. -- LDC
Reply to above: I seriously doubt the writer above is a mainland Chinese from the way he talks. At best he only fits the description of a "banana man" as said by the late Chinese premeir Chou-En-Lai. This is a term to describe someone with yellow skin like a banana, otherwise inside it is all white i.e. completely westernised in thought and hence ignorant what is true Chinese culture is about.
Please do not remove red links--I am working on them. Thanks. heidimo 22:36, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
To say that TCM has absolutely no scientific basis is a bit far-fetched. Take a look at http://www.healthy.net/asp/templates/article.asp?PageType=article&ID=1278#The%20Physiology%20of%20Traditional%20Chinese%20Medicine, http://www.ucihealth.com/News/Releases/Acupuncture.htm. Research is still ongoing and we can say that much scientific basis has yet to be discovered, if at the same time we say these remedies work.-- Jia ng 08:09, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I didn't say it has no scientific basis - I said that Western science has failed to detect any material basis for its central principles (Qi etc). I was very careful how I phrased this because I knew the WP thought-police would be onto me very quickly for challenging such a sacred cow as the superiority of non-western thought in all things. Adam 08:13, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Jiang, I am really surprised that someone who is both scientifically trained and (correct me if I'm wrong) of Chinese descent seems to know so little about this subject. There is a perfectly good scientific explanation for the (very limited) beneficial effects of acupuncture (it's to do with gate theory). The issue is not whether some TCM techniques "work" - of course they do. The issue is with the underlying explanation of why they work: Qi and all that, which makes no biological sense and cannot be either verified or tested empirically. But this is really only a side issue. The real difference between Western medicine and all pre-modern medicine is the discovery of infection, and the resulting breakthroughs in disease control and public health, as well as later developments such as oncology. No pre-modern medicine can do anything in these areas. Adam 08:42, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Adam's text ignores the prevailing view that TCM and Western medicine can be complementary - the former for chronic diseases and the latter for more immediate emergencies. It states that just because TCM by itself failed to increase living standards over those using western medicine, TCM does not work. This position is illogical. Yout "western" doctors (white middle aged males living in Silicon Valley) are referring their patients to the acupuncturist. -- Jia ng 08:16, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
That is most certainly not the prevailing view of the great majority of Western doctors and scientists - Jiang's corner of California may be an exception but that does not surprise me much. More generally, if my section is edited in way Fuzheado suggests, we will have a first half completely uncritical of TCM, and a second half full of the usual WP tortured "NPOV" sentences. Much better to have two parts of the article which disagree with each other but which are in overall balance (yin and yang, perhaps?) Adam 08:23, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Also Jiang misunderstands the comment about living standards. I'm sure he understands the relationship between the rise of capitalism and the scientific revolution of which western scientific medicince is part. The point I was making was about the standards by which the validity of a system of medicine should be judged. All pre-modern medicine fails by those standards, not just TCM. Adam 08:32, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
In any case, the issue is not whether you and I agree about TCM, but what the article should say. The article as it stood was a straightforward paean of praise for TCM. All I did was add a section setting out the alternative viewpoint. Adam 08:45, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
To take Fuzheado's points one at a time:
Aha, now RK is here the real fun will start - no more Dr Nice Guy. He makes me look like a hippy. Adam 15:27, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
My remark above about RK may be a little flippant, but I think my debate with Jiang and Fuzheado (see above) shows that I take this issue seriously. Of course there is a conflict between TCM (and all pre-modern medical systems) and western science-based medicine. See my comments about AIDS above. This is a real issue for many people, and clarity of thought and word is required. That is why I intervened in this article in the first place ( Thoth knows I have enough arguments running elsewhere to keep me busy.) I don't think that conflict needs to be expressed in the article in an antagonistic way, and I don't believe that my edits do so. In my debates here, I give as good as I get. Adam 04:01, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I hardly know where to begin with such breathtaking ethnocentrism. If you want to believe that China is a Western country, that there is no difference between Chinese and Western culture and civilisation, and no dichotomy between TCM and Western medicine, I wish you well arguing that position with any well-informed Chinese you happen to meet. Let me know what you do next time you get acute appendicitis, by the way. Adam 04:30, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I've given the conversation time to settle for one main reason -- Adam, your repuatation precedes you. So I didn't want to escalate without thinking carefully about things first. However, your comments really do test the boundaries of constructive interaction. To wit, AC:I could have said "modern" instead of western but you would still have objected. Your arrogance, intentional or not, of supposing to know my reaction is breathtaking. Modern and Western are not the same, and my comments would have been drastically different. But to get to real matters.
If you need evidence that it doesn't have to be "us vs. them" or "East vs. West", come and visit the city I'm in now -- Hong Kong. This city is the most clear example of East and West coexisting and complementing each other. It's perhaps the mantra of this place, not just in medicine, but in all cultural, economic and social aspects. (After all, this is where the eclectic mix of X.O. brandy, abalone, Kjeldsen's butter cookies, pork floss and Rocher chocolates are given as Chinse New Year gifts.) Walk down any crowded street and it's a mix of modern pharmacies and traditional herbal Chinese remedies. People here have public "modern" healthcare, and they use it. And many intersperse it with traditional Chinese wellness techniques. You have practitioners in one field who refer patients to use the other type of medicine. It's not an either-or situation.
Another problem with this debate is that TCM is not a single entity -- many people trust in the herbology, some in acupuncture, fewer in bonesetting. Many folks who find TCM useful don't believe in the five elements mentioned in the article, but find the herbal tonics and teas do boost immune systems or help with enzyme and hormonal balances, in addition to their use of modern clinical medicine.
The original "Western views of..." section presents "Western" as panacea and TCM as voodoo-like, which is inaccurate, unreferenced, dangerously broad and simplistic. There are many variations and nuances in modern and TC medicine, and keeping that section as originally written brings down the article's credibility and usefulness. Fuzheado 05:01, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I went out of my way in my text to say that western medicine does not regard TCM as worthless and that some of its methods do work (though not for the reasons TCM traditional practitioners believed). I don't believe that western medicine is a panacaea, and I certainly didn't say so. If the word "substandard" is now in the text, I didn't put it there. "Voodoo-like"? Hmmm, if this article was about
Haitian traditional medicine I bet you wouldn't make such a pejorative remark.
Adam 05:15, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I humbly disagree with you. There is a Western intellectual tradition, and nearly all of what we now call "modern" science, including medical science, grew out of that tradition. There are also a number of non-Western intellectual traditions, of which the Chinese is one. Nothing I wrote makes any value judgements about any of those traditions, it simply describes how the Western tradition views non-Western forms of medical practice: it views them as unscientific, resting on custom and authority rather than on research - just as Western medicine did until the 17th century, when Hippocrates and Galen were the only source of medical authority. Adam 05:31, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
In the face of such ridiculous caricaturing of what I have actually said, I am withdrawing from this argument. There always comes such a point in WP arguments. If anyone wants to make edits to my text, they are of course free to do so, and then we can debate specific points. Until then, good night. Adam 11:08, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Well I appreciate that sentiment. Adam 05:10, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Removed this since I don't know think that this is true.....
Who do you think there are Western-style hospitals and medical schools all over China? Adam 05:21, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Removed this since it isn't true.....
You can argue that TCM is not peer reviewed, but you can't plausibly argue that most of it is taught in secret. User:Roadrunner
Also, I think that Adam as a limited view of what Chinese doctors do.
This is also not clear to me
I need to look at my sources, but I do remember reading somewhere that life expectancy in China in 1750's was considerably higher than Europe. This isn't necessarily due to Chinese medicine (i.e. triple cropping of rice helped), but it does mean that this argument doesn't work.
"Proponents of TCM claim that they can detect and manipulate these energies, but they can only demonstrate this to fellow believers. This is analagous to people who believe in God, and claim that they can detect God. In both cases, only believers agree, while no firm proof actually exists.
- + - Most doctors and scientists hold that people who claim to sense such energies are deceiving themselves with magical thinking"
The only people who have detected gravity are believers in it ;) Your argument makes no sense. Once people have verified something, they believe in it. If they successfully prove it to someone else, they necessarily believe in it as well. Those who don't believe in it clearly aren’t convinced. There is clearly a positive correlation between having seen proof, and belief in a certain concept. Obvious stuff here, lol.
Most Doctors? What on earth? Have you seen a survey of "most doctors"? Do you have any idea of what % of earths doctors are Chinese? Or Indian? Or Malaysian? The ethnocentrism in your POV is shocking. Even if what you meant by "most doctors" was maybe "conventional medical wisdom among the physicians association of great Britain" or some such, I'd request a citation, and a clearer wording. But the suggestion that your musings amount to the opinions of "most doctors" seems dishearteningly unacademic to me Jack 05:37, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Incidentally, I'm personally very skeptical of Chinese medicine, but most of my edits were to remove things that just don't seem to me to be true (i.e. the prevalence of Chinese medicine in China, and the amount of secrecy association with TCM).
The article seems fail to mention the current situation of TCM developments. For one thing, in China and in Canada, a person has to have some western medical trainings before getting the TCM license. Also, modern TCM research is directed towards integration with mainstream western medical science. wshun 05:46, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
In other words it is "western medicine with Chinese characteristics" which I think proves my point. Anyway, there are some battles at Wikipedia that can't be won, and arguing against people who think that everything non-western and traditional is automatically superior to everything western and scientific is one of them. I meant to remove this article from my watchlist a while ago and now I am doing so. I wish you all luck when you get acute appendicitis. Adam 05:50, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
http://www.worldscinet.com/ajcm/ajcm.shtml
Among the articles are....
Jing-Tian Xie, Han H. Aung, Ji An Wu, A. S. Attele and Chun-Su Yuan
Hiroshi Nagasawa, Katsuto Watanabe and Hideo Inatomi
Duo Chen, Chun Fu Wu, Li Huang and Zhuo Ning
Tsutomu Nakada, Kenji Watanabe, Guang-bi Jin, Kazuo Toriizuka and Toshihiko Hanawa
Chun-Ching Lin, Lean-Teik Ng, Jenq-Jer Yang and Yu-Fang Hsu
Yu-Jen Ko, Wen-Tsuan Hsieh, Yueh-Wern Wu and Wen-Chuan Lin
Y. Kurono, M. Egawa, T. Yano and K. Shimoo
J. H. Lin, L. S. Wu, Y. L. Wu, C. S. Lin and N. Y. J. Yang
Young Youn Kim, Jung Mi Choi, Soo Yong Kim, Sang Kyu Park, Seung Heun Lee and Kun Ho Lee
Jongbae Park, Hi-Joon Park, Hye-Jung Lee and Edzard Ernst
This is also a very questionable statement....
For example, the Chinese theory of diseases of the lung were that they were caused by "evil qi" which was inhaled by the patient. That doesn't sound like it hasn't been demonstrated, and "evil qi" in this case can clearly been seen by a microscope.
Another situation would be a broken bone, a Chinese medicial practioner would feel the broken bone, say "your qi is out of balance" and through a series of manipulations bring your qi back into balance by setting the bone.
Changed RK's edits, because they aren't true. Yes, if you go to Chinatown, the TCM people their might whisper mumble-jumbo about qi being a special outside force. If you go to China and talk to TCM practioners there, most won't.
The problem here is that TCM occupies a *completely* different niche in China than it does in the West.
I removed this:
In addition, Western practioners in TCM in contrast to those in China, are almost never licensed and are not required to undergo a rigourous academic program. This allows practioners in the West to make extravagant claims that they would never do in China.
What is this saying? To practice TCM in the West requires 3 or 4 years of intensive schooling and passing a board exam in order to get licensed. Now, if you are an MD it is true you do not need training or licensing in TCM in order to perform TCM procedures, but I don't think that is what this phrase is saying. Why do people keep posting outrageous lies to discredit TCM on the Wikipedia? If TCM is really based on a bunch of woo-woo crap, then you shouldn't have to lie about it to make your point. heidimo 17:54, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)