krakonfour wrote:Why can't they go the industrial route then? Farm all these going-extinct species that make up its oh-so-effective medicine?
They do. Its NOT a pretty sight. Google up Black Bear Bile farms, in particular, how multiple sampling leads to infection and the death of the bear. Usually done without anaethesia.
Covenant wrote:Poor little buggers. What the hell is wrong with these people anyway? Satire aside, China really does want to believe they have 5000 years of history (a manufactured figure) and the cultural power of the "Traditional Medicine" makes more sense when it's called "National Medicine," especially when it ties history and present together in one easily controlled narrative.
Simon_Jester wrote:I would think that the Chinese Communist Party would be fighting rather hard against "traditional Chinese medicine." They are, if nothing else, modernizers, and it is based on a level of medical knowledge which is only very slightly less ignorant than that of medieval Christendom and its four humours.
Ok....... Let's clear up some stuff.
The whole thousands of years of history? This ISN"T the West. If you attack TCM along the lines of its changes, you're not going to get very far.While accupuncture in its modern form is new, the materia medicae of TCM goes back to the Han dynasty and has been constantly revised. Massage/Tuina is based from the Ming dynasty and Tai Chi is an update of 'energy medicine' dating back to the Song. Ditto to Accupuncture. The modern form is from the Industrial Age. The charts. Modern day. But the practice itself is dated back to the Han Dynasty and is itself based on even more ancient practices.
IF you attack TCM based on how most of it has come up within the last one thousand years, you're simply going to get the argument that this shows how technology and science has evolved TCM. Never forget that TCM ISN"T like most other forms of traditional alternative medicines. While the 'theories' are based along traditional mystical beliefs from the Warring States era, the practice and execution of it has been along a methodological basis that sees revision every now and then incorporating new techniques and materia medicae.
And TCM as practiced in China is CAM before the West came up with the term. The main political reason for this was that China was embargoed during Mao era and when he revamped China medical system, he chose to use TCM alongside 'modern'(this IS china we're talking about) practices, both to exhibit the self reliance of China, her sciences and most importantly, the fact that TCM is cheap compared to the then non existent medical equipment/drugs that the West wasn't exporting.
Now, the sheer scale and disparity of the population means we're not going to get a cheap narrative for TCM. Some use it because of belief in its efficacy(TCM treats root causes, Western treats symptoms. TCM builds up body, Western is more aggressive and etc etc etc) Some use it because of cost. Some use it out of tradition. Some combine both uses(read insert about efficacy)
But the main reasons why TCM is being pushed by China now is because of its commercial potential. And to develop its commercial potential further, they're not just talking about education and regulation, since we all know educating and regulating nonsense doesn't remove its nonsense.
Its also endorsing and pushing scientific studies into the use of TCM, of which an every growing number of studies are being published in china yearly. And we're not talking about studies on the mystical powers about TCM either. We're talking about trials where efficiacy of methods are compared for various conditions and etc etc etc.
Hell. The use of ATO, indeed, the argument that ATO/ATRA is an effective front line treatment for APML without gent or the traditional, more expensive ATRA augmented chemotherapy is based ENTIRELY off these clinical trials, because arsenic was used as a treatment for cancer and they took that and subjected it to scientific examination . I had the opportunity to read the lecture given here by one of the Chinese scientist who led the initial trial showing how ATO was an effective salvage chemotherapy. He essentially harped about how China materia medicae, how TCM is providing avenues for effective medication, not along the lines of traditional Western pharmacopeia but rather, along the lines of how TCM is effective and how scientific examination will make it more effective, combined with newer techniques and etc.
Hell, just look at how Ma Huang is sold in China nowadays. In pill forms. Literally no fucking difference from ephedra, except that pseudoephedra is made synethetically but Ma Huang pills are still processed from herbs, then subjected to QC for dosage. And before you protest, I'm aware that herbal remedies will still have large varying dose differences, but any discussion of TCM in China needs to recognise how the 'industry' practices is different from the traditional medicine halls . Hell, its even a form of contention for the traditional sinseh/shifus of traditional medicine halls, about how commericialisation and industrialisation has changed the practice of TCM and etc etc etc. Or how Chinese TCM physicians are arguing over traditional diagnostic techniques over actual medical diagnostic techniques and etc etc etc.....
The more modern form of TCM physician, i.e, anything that's actually regulated and out from recent Chinese academies are using medical diagnostic techniques to come up with diagnosis, then combining it with traditional diagnostic techniques to tailor remedies and stuff. And this is even before you go into how Mo shi or electric acupuncture is making its way back into TCM.
I won't say how "good" this means for medicine in China but the discussion points shown here is ignorant of the last two decades of commercialisation and development of TCM in China/East Asia.
Let him land on any Lyran world to taste firsthand the wrath of peace loving people thwarted by the myopic greed of a few miserly old farts- Katrina Steiner
Commander of the MFS Darwinian Selection Method (sexual)
