Chinese Medicine Notes

Defending Chinese Medicine- part 1

Posted on December 24, 2007 by Yael6 Comments

I’ll start by saying that this is going to be long.
The article we talk about here is 7 pages long, and- well, we had a lot to say about it. So this will be a two part post.
******************************************************
We surf the net in search of more information about Chinese Medicine on a regular basis.
We found this article on a website called Quack Watch.
At first we went through the article, thinking this is yet another person who thinks he knows something about CM (but really doesn’t), but we saw that the person writing the article has very strong opinions in regards of the CM, how effective and what stands behind it. When we come across a text which puts down, insults and disrespects CM, we make it a point to read it carefully, thinking that the text is based on ignorance and a negative pre-disposition regarding CM and Alternative Medicine in general.
Dr. Stephen Barrett did not fail us, and indeed, his article is based on more false things than true.
Let’s read it together shall we?

The 2 opening phrases clearly show that the distinguished doctor did not do his research properly.
If he had, he would know that there is more to CM than just TCM, and that Chinese Medicine doesn’t necessarily mean TCM. Also, there is no mention of Chinese herbs, which is ancient, in-depth and has very clear evidence to it’s effects. There is no mention of Tuina either. In the second paragraph we are witnessing complete lies and misguidance of the public. There is no “injection of sterile water, procaine, morphine, vitamins or homeopathic solutions through the needles”. Of course he fails to mention that the needles are sterile and are not to be used more than once.
Between you and me, if he would have done his homework properly, he would know better than to mention homeopathy, because than he would know that you don’t mix CM with homeopathy.
Throughout the article, Dr. Barrett fails to mention that the Chinese Medicine is based on Chinese philosophy, which just might be important to mention when you remember that the Western Medicine and science is basically based on Greek philosophy. Did he fail to mention this because he didn’t want to show something that both medicines have in common? After all, if he mentioned the Chinese philosophy, the “mess” that reflects from his article regarding Qi and acupuncture points could have been avoided, the reader would know that there’s something behind it all.