Chinese Medicine: Scientific or Anecdotal?
As the Financial Times reports, the Chinese government is seeking to have a more influential voice in deciding what "Chinese medicine" really is and how it is performed:
"The Chinese are very interested in pushing their interpretation, because this makes people come here [to China]," Prof Unschuld says. "This has long-term political and economic dividends." The World Federation of Chinese Medicine Societies, launched by the Beijing government in September, will create a platform for the spread of international benchmarks for Chinese medicine, says Li Zhonghai, head of China's standardisation administration.
If "Chinese medicine" is a traditional cultural practice, that seems reasonable - but it isn't reasonable if one tries to claim that the techniques and medicines are scientifically valid.
But the development of Chinese medicine continues to be handicapped by a lack of hard evidence demonstrating its efficacy. That traditional remedies work is an article of faith in China - and an article of the constitution, which calls for Chinese medicine to be promoted alongside western healthcare.
If something like acupuncture "works" from a scientific standpoint, then whatever acupuncture method "works" is what the standard course of treatment must be - the Chinese government cannot dictate that in any way, shape, or form. Governments cannot decide "truth" in matters of science; the Soviet Union attempted that when it threw its weight behind Lysenko's theories of evolution and paid a disastrous price for it.
Chinese medicine, if it is to be treated as scientifically valid and valuable, must stand or fall on its own - without help from Chinese authorities.
Read More:


Comments
No comments yet. Leave a Comment