Is_Chinese_Medicine_Scientific_

Introduction Debate on the scientific value of Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has been going on in the past decades. People argue that TCM can only be valued as an alternative treatment method to western medicine as well as a cultural asset instead of a real treatment option which is reliable and scientific nowadays. People are used to justify TCM’s value and effectiveness by the measures of western medicine, however, more controversial arguments out there to request to have review on the scientific value of TCM from different point of views. TCM has been widely using by Chinese people for over 5000 years, it is believed that there were many different types of treatment options available over the thousands years in the development of China, the existing TCM nowadays is a selected one among them all by people of China in the history to be the most effective treatments to diseases. Those people who regard TCM is not scientific may not have good understanding of the development of TCM and they are possibly confined to define the matter by only comparing it with the modern western medicine. It is simply unfair to reach the conclusion that TCM is not scientific by the generalized evaluations which are commonly adopted by Western medicine. This paper explores the different points of view on evaluating the scientific values of TCM and also reveals the importance of its functionality and effectiveness on the evaluation process. Different concept of scientific value TCM is based on a scientific model entirely different from the one that governs the majority of Western medicine, which is governed by Western materialism. Western materialism is a specific type of science that can be defined tightly for hypothesis by a well constructed experiment. TCM does not fit into the framework of materialistic science because it does not meet the specific standards of methodology adopted by western medicine nowadays (Vickers et al, 1995). Before something can de deemed to be validated or proven in science, they following criteria should be met in accordance with the modern scientific methodology: o Proper experiments and trials under very strict conditions need to be conducted and documented. o The experiments need to be re-run to allow the results to be checked and re-checked. o Results of these experiments and trials need to be checked and tested by similar experiments and trials elsewhere. o And, finally, the results of all of these experiments and trials then need to be checked and verified by stringent review by suitably qualified and objective people. When all of these tests have been passed, then something can claim to have been verified. Unfortunately, in many cases, such verification procedures have either not been conducted properly or they have not yet been able to prove that particular TCM treatments are truly effective. Simply, TCM does not meet the above stringent requirement and it is deemed to be regarded as not scientific. Also, we are in a society of science and our science is deeply committed to the seen and measurable. In TCM, it is the “Qi” or energy of the being that enlivens and connects the different systems of the body. It is also this “Qi” that connects the body to the mind and spirit of the being. “Qi” is an unseen force, that it is not measurable. Certainly, it cannot be evaluated by ultrasound and its levels cannot be determined from a blood draw. This unseen and immeasurable energy makes TCM so mystical to our Western minds. But practitioners of TCM have relied on specific methods of observation to ascertain the quality of a patient’s qi for thousands of years. Observation of the tongue (its color, coat, and shape) and of the patient’s pulse (felt in 3 positions at 3 different levels, on each wrist, with the rate, rhythm, shape, and quality all bearing significance) are time-tested methods for evaluation that have guided TCM to correctly diagnose and treat its patient’s throughout the centuries. Besides the “Qi, Blood, Essence ad Body Fluid” theory, the “Yin Yang” theory and the “Five Element” theory are also the based of TCM which can not be verified by the western methods. Is it because the fundamental theories of TCM above are not able to be seen and measured, then, it should be discarded and undervalue in term of modern medicine' TCM is the wisdom and experiences of many TCM practitioners all the along its development since ancient China. Selections of treatment methods and diagnosis are the experiences of TCM practitioners for thousand years; experiments were done and selection was made as that of Western medicine to prove the validity and effectiveness of TCM in ancient China. Lots of proper documentation, findings and books were found in ancient China. TCM, therefore, should be viewed as scientific as Western medicine in view of the history of its development and the selection of people over it. We should consider this valuable history before assuming that Chinese medicine is immeasurable and, therefore, invalid, but recognize instead that it’s mechanisms for measurement are simply different from our own. It is undeniable that Chinese medicine has been proving its values to effectively heal our bodies and minds like so many generations of people that have relied on it for the thousands of years in China before Western medicine. The scientific value of CM should be viewed and evaluated in a different ways other than that of materialistic science. It may be true that it will never be possible to understand what “Qi” is from a Western materialistic standpoint, and it may be also difficult or even impossible to design appropriate laboratory experiments that verify specific claims of TCM, but clinical study after clinical study as well as the outcomes of treatments both demonstrate the effectiveness of Chinese medicine in a different way of scientific angle. Different goals of outcome TCM truly is one of the most complete forms of a health system, where it promotes the balance of the body. It believes that if there are imbalances in the body of a person, he or she experiences discomfort or illness. The understanding of which that one has to heal the mind and soul before the complete healing in body can occur makes it superior to our western medicine. In Western medicine, medications can surely be of help to control the illness for a short time use, it will never solve the cause why the illness occurred. Western medicines typically do not address the multitude of factors that often connect an individual to his or her condition. Modern drugs often control the symptoms, but do not truly alter the body susceptibility to disease or sickness. For example, (a) antibiotics help eliminate the bacteria but they do not improve a person’s resistance to infection (b) diuretics get rid of excess fluid without improving inherent kidney function (c) allergy & heartburn medications may reduce the symptoms but also create a host of other side-effects and lastly, the high prevalence of depression in today’s society is certainly not from a lack of antidepressants in the diet. Should the effectiveness on one’s physical and mental condition by the holistic approach of TCM be counted as scientific' How to connect the relationship of TCM and its outcome in a scientific way' If the connections are not easily defined by the modern views, would it be defined as not scientific and should not be used' I think the answer is pretty clear to be no, because the similar condition are common in modern western medicine. Evidences show the scientific side Researches done in the past decades have been used to justify some allegations of TCM, for example, that qigong supports wellbeing by encouraging contentment, that neurotransmitters that soothe pain are created by acupuncture, or that influential biochemical agents are contained within Chinese herbal medicines have been proved and supported by the modern western authentication methods. To test the validity of Chinese medicine, there are many researches done in the way of evidence based ground to prove the scientific validity of TCM. To quota an example, the role of pain treatment of Chinese medicine was supported in the May 2000 of Anesthesia & Analgesia, official journal of the International Anesthesia Research Society (IARS). The results provide a scientific background for the ancient practice of acupuncture, according to Dr. Dominik Irnich, Head of the Multidisciplinary Pain Centre, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Munich, and the study's leading author. The research findings were regarded as reproducible and it can be treated as the cornerstone of scientific inquiry because the researchers had clearly described their methodologies and their findings. If other laboratories can reproduce these results in properly controlled studies, then this provides further support for the scientific basis of acupuncture. The above example is just the brink of iceberg as more and more researches have been doing in the past decades. Even back to the old time of China, experiments were done and the best treatments were formed based on the desirable outcomes. On the other hand, evidence-based reviews of prior clinical trials, such as those reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration and Bandolier, suggest that Acupuncture is effective for treating headache, lower back pain, nausea, pain, and vomiting that may occur following surgery, dental work, or a course of chemotherapy. The official positions of the American Medical Association (AMA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the World Health Organization (WHO) are that Acupuncture is relatively safe and that it might be useful as an additional or alternative treatment for a range of conditions, such as: addiction, asthma, carpal tunnel syndrome, fibromyalgia, lower back pain, menstrual cramps, myofascial pain, osteoarthritis, stroke rehabilitation, and tennis elbow. However, all of these health organizations (AMA, NIH, and WHO) agree that further research and investigation into Acupuncture is required. It is stated that efforts to prove or disprove the effectiveness of Acupuncture are hamstrung by the difficulty of creating effective placebos for Acupuncture studies (Wu, 2004). Reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of TCM were made in the decades to evaluate the effectiveness of TCM. One of the results revealed (Prof. Tang et al, 1999) that there are large numbers of RCTs done on TCM, almost 10000 RCTs were published in China before 1997 and the number of trials published had gone doubled every two to three years during early 1980 to 1997. However, it is reported that the quality of trials of TCM must be improved urgently. Large and well designed RCTs on long term major outcomes should be funded. Subsequently, such studies may serve as models for future trials in the area. Treatments to be tested should be selected so that potentially effective and important treatments are evaluated first. The best evidence should be systematically reviewed, summarised, and disseminated, which in turn would lead to evidence based decision making in TCM. Though the reviews do not tell how scientific TCM on the tract of Western medicine road, it shows the effort made by TCM practitioners or researches on the development of TCM. Scientific value of Western medicine According to the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment "80-90% of medical interventions practiced by physicians are not scientifically proven. In 1991 the British Medical Journal observed that "Only 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence, which is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound and partly because many treatments have not been assessed at all”. It is also stated that fewer than half the pharmaceutical drugs have a proven operational mechanism; most mechanisms are presumed (Xie & Li, 1994). This lack of scientific verification of medicine does not seem to cause medical doctors or medical journalists much concern nevertheless. It shows that Western medicine may not be as scientific as people may think, actually, further researches are necessary in both Western and Chinese medicines in order to be scientific enough in the future, however, it is deemed to be slow going because the expense of research is often prohibitive. Conclusion: TCM may not be regarded as scientific as Western medicine by the methodologies widely used in modern Western medicine; however, in view of the development of TCM, selection by people because of its effectiveness, and holistic approach as well as its functionality and treatment outcome, TCM should be viewed as a scientific medicine as well. I believe that TCM is in line with the demand and development of modern society, therefore promotion in scientific research in TCM has made considerable progress in the past decades. If we only accept and use those medicines which had been fully scientifically validated and proven by the modern methodologies, we would have very little choices at all and detrimental to the benefit of patients because of less choices. At last but not least, it has been proved that TCM poses less harm and fewer side effects than Western medicine on many clinical aspects. To sum up, scientific development is indispensable for the development of TCM in the future though TCM is regarded as scientific in this paper.