Jump to content

Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 92: Line 92:
::::*While the FDA may have issued a ban on the use of substances it in no way precludes the possibility that these substances are still used or verifies that their use (intentional or otherwise) has been discontinued
::::*While the FDA may have issued a ban on the use of substances it in no way precludes the possibility that these substances are still used or verifies that their use (intentional or otherwise) has been discontinued
::::*The fact that these standards have been added to the FDA's regulations doesn't constitute a "Standardization" of American TCM in the sense of a regulated medical practice. It merely emphasizes the fact that the people promoting it have been told to stop filling it with hazardous crap. The use of that term is therefore synth. [[User:Edaham|Edaham]] ([[User talk:Edaham|talk]]) 04:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
::::*The fact that these standards have been added to the FDA's regulations doesn't constitute a "Standardization" of American TCM in the sense of a regulated medical practice. It merely emphasizes the fact that the people promoting it have been told to stop filling it with hazardous crap. The use of that term is therefore synth. [[User:Edaham|Edaham]] ([[User talk:Edaham|talk]]) 04:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
::::: I agreed that the term "standard American TCM" is not an official term, but seems to be an attempt to describe a real phenomenon. Better use of published sources would be to describe the knowledge base required for national certification (NCCAOM) or the standards of accreditation (ACAOM) used in the US. Not sure why you seem to have a bone to pick, its just simple fact that TCM practitioners in the US tend to be more risk averse than in China due to the litigious nature of the culture and an emphasis on safety concerns in the acupuncture colleges (see the Clean Needle Technique Manual published by CCAOM). Sorry if our actual practices don't fit your narrative. [[User:Herbxue|Herbxue]] ([[User talk:Herbxue|talk]]) 17:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:05, 16 January 2018

New law sparks debate

CNN-article, maybe useful for something, like regulations? [1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Traditional Chinese medicine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Traditional Chinese medicine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there such a thing as American Modern TCM

An edit summary today implies there is, distinct from TCM. Wut gives? -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 19:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See below - I've taken this into account in my objection to a piece of restored material. Edaham (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Lead content" image caption

Standard American TCM practice considers lead-containing herbs obsolete.[176]
People keep adding the above sentence to the info box, featuring an image of a piece of lead used in quack medicine.
Tempted to re-revert this diff, but happy to BRD instead.

  1. The article isn't about "standard american" TCM - what ever that is
  2. The first source mentioned below the image, clearly demonstrates that it is being used in modern TCM
  3. Other sources demonstrate that this product is still used.

The addition here hints of white-washing, definitely includes aspects of synth and is at best off-topic for the article, which doesn't specify or limit what kind of TCM it deals with.
can we please have a consensus here. Many thanks Edaham (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Hi there, I'd like to clarify a bit. The article does seek to describe the practice of Chinese Medicine worldwide, for example - the section on regulatory agencies in various countries. Since the 70's, it's been illegal in the USA to use products from endangered animals. Of course, the situation in mainland China is different, so it's worthwhile to describe this huge difference in industry standards, dependent on where in the world the medicine is practiced.

Here's a source from an American TCM company describing what isn't allowed in the USA (including lead). Thank you for the discussion on this.

https://www.mayway.com/pdfs/maywaymailers/Skye-Sturgeon-QM-Restricted-herbs-P1-10-2011.pdf Thorbachev (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3O as requested here 09:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I'd say that the article does cover TCM in other countries. However, standard american might be a misnomer. I'd say include but reword. Third opinion ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with keep but reword. It is significant that practitioners in Western countries practice in different regulatory snd cultural contexts. Herbxue (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's significant if there's reliable sources (MEDRS) to validate the inclusion. It's not noteworthy if unreliable, low-quality texts are being used by people promoting the subject of this article to assuage the concerns of readers who might be worried about the contents of various kinds of CAM treatments. I think this is worth an RfC as I believe that the term "Standard American TCM" is misleadingly fabricated and the information added is not particularly due in light of the fact that a number of genuinely reliable sources such as health organizations caution people as to the potentially harmful contents of the remedies, including the use of ores.
  • While the FDA may have issued a ban on the use of substances it in no way precludes the possibility that these substances are still used or verifies that their use (intentional or otherwise) has been discontinued
  • The fact that these standards have been added to the FDA's regulations doesn't constitute a "Standardization" of American TCM in the sense of a regulated medical practice. It merely emphasizes the fact that the people promoting it have been told to stop filling it with hazardous crap. The use of that term is therefore synth. Edaham (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed that the term "standard American TCM" is not an official term, but seems to be an attempt to describe a real phenomenon. Better use of published sources would be to describe the knowledge base required for national certification (NCCAOM) or the standards of accreditation (ACAOM) used in the US. Not sure why you seem to have a bone to pick, its just simple fact that TCM practitioners in the US tend to be more risk averse than in China due to the litigious nature of the culture and an emphasis on safety concerns in the acupuncture colleges (see the Clean Needle Technique Manual published by CCAOM). Sorry if our actual practices don't fit your narrative. Herbxue (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Traditional_Chinese_medicine&oldid=820792388"