Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Atc424. Peer reviewers: Crystalyu1214, JaredWeiss.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Misplaced content[edit]

Thanks everyone for all of the nice contributions to the article. The section on medicinal mushrooms belongs in a different article, since mushrooms are fungi, not herbs. The section on the effects of TCM use of animals doesn't belong in this article on herbology, since animals aren't herbs, either. WriterHound (talk) 00:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article title is somewhat misleading. "Chinese Herbology" is a translation of 中药 which should be more accurately translated as "Chinese Medicinals" because Yao refers to medicinal substances in general, including herbs, fungi, insects, various animal products, minerals, etc.Herbxue (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

If herbology is the study of herbs, why is it pronounced "HERB-ol-o-gy" when herb is pronounced "ERB"?? Unsigned comment by 24.176.65.31

Because in American English we affect a French accent for this word (silent "H") but in British English they say the "H."

Redirection[edit]

Why does this page redirect to Chinese herbology?

50 fundamental herbs[edit]

I added 28 of the 50 fundamental herbs (the other 22 can't be found online easily). Badagnani 23:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm a student of Chinese Medicine and cannot recall any discussion of "50 Fundamental Herbs"...is there some classical source for this? All I could see was a link to a website with an entry about a single herb "Sheng Di Huang"... --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.39.156 (talk • contribs)

It's a list from the book of Wong Ming (Wong, Ming (1976). La Médecine chinoise par les plantes. Le Corps a Vivre series. Éditions Tchou). Maybe he came up with it on his own, or it's based on traditional concepts. Some of the more commonly used herbs aren't in the list, which is strange. The link I gave discusses that herb as one of the 50. Badagnani 21:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This list conveys a completely inaccurate picture of modern Chinese medical praxis. Indeed, it is almost bizarre, listing many herbs that are highly uncommon and only a few of the more commonly used ones. I can't imagine any modern Chinese practitioner coming up with such a list (indeed, they'd have to look up quite a few of these herbs). Even if it can be proven that there is a list of "50 fundamental herbs" in some classical source, that source text should be cited and a historical analysis added that places the list into context. If it's just an arbitrary list from some 30-year old source, then it should be scrapped altogether. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.219.100 (talk • contribs)

Can someone give the common names of these herbs? The scientific names aren't very helpful when briefly scanning the article. ~Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.214.85 (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I concur. I think that this section could be greatly improved by turning the ordered list into a table---and one of the columns should be the common name of the plant in English (when applicable). Maybe I'll give it a try. J Crow (talk) 03:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added common names to the table for all that could be determined. Some are ambiguous or don't have common english names.Bamf (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Wong, Ming (1976) book doesn't seem to be an authoritative and important reference. I talked to few people who have PhD in Chinese medicine and practice it and they never heard about "50 fundamental herbs". Also they are saying that some of the herbs listed are barely used now. I suggest we should replace this list with the list of the most commonly used herbs, or with the list of herbs from the textbook for students. Yurivict (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The section on 50 fundamental herbs has been changed as follows:

IMHO, this change helps to resolve the dispute about whether there is really such a thing as 50 fundamental herbs, by specifying the non-universal nature of the concept, as shown above. Nonetheless, the concept that there is such a thing as 50 fundamental herbs appears to be very popular, and has been quoted in many articles in Wikipedia. i suppose 50 is a nice number, a number that sounds convincing to many people. It is also not too large to boggle the mind. Actually, herbs are almost always used in combinations, and the number of possible combinations from 50 herbs is pretty large, but that is another story altogether. Bsites (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An astonishing number of these '50 fundamental herbs' don't give any reason, i.e. medicinal, nutrition etc., why they should be considered 'fundamental' so that negates your reasoning why this list is 'popular'. When one peruses the list, one has to consider the purpose of having such a list in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.102.246 (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, I couln't get a hold of the book cited but it seems all across the internet they're just plainly copying this list. Alot of the plants on there I can't find either. Is there some clear source out there with clear 50 or so commonly used plants? I need to make an inventory of the most used that can be cultivated in a temperate (european) climate. All review papers I've read about the Wong book state it's dubious, but can't seem to trace why they're called "fundamental" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.229.151.59 (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An anon asked Can someone give the common names of these herbs? The answer is yes, and the common names are already given — in Chinese, as these are plants native to China and do not have English common names. Presuming that the anon questioner is someone interested in herbs, my advice is to learn to use proper botanical names for all plants. "Common names" vary far too much, the same plant having different common names in different places (sometimes even the same place), and the same common name applying to different plants.

"Bluebell", for example, is used for a campanula, a lupin, and an endymion.

Floozybackloves (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree with floozybackloves. First of all, many of these herbs are grown in many parts of the world, and do have English common names. Camellia sinesis is the tea plant, cannabis sativa is the hemp plant, and there are others. I went ahead and made the list of plants into a table with a column for english common names. I believe that this will be very helpful for readers who are first approaching this topic. By providing all three naming schemes (scientific, chinese, english commmon--when available) we address a wider audience. Many readers will find the scientific and chinese names opaque, while names like "kudzu" allow them to connect 'pueria lobata' to a plant which they may already know. J Crow (talk) 04:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Critical Evaluation[edit]

This discussion of Chinese Herbology is entirely uncritical. There needs to be an honest assessment of the efficacy of Chinese treatments compared to modern - ie "evidence-based" - medicine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.32.117.188 (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]


The fact is there are tons and tons of scientific articles on the effect of Chinese medicinals...the only problem is they are mostly written in Chinese and not many people are concerned with translating them. Though it is an anecdotal commonplace that Western biochemists are scouring the Chinese Materia Medica for drugs to patent. One famous example is Qing Hao (Artemisia Annua Herba) which had success as an anti-malarial agent...just look up Qing Hao Su on google. "Su" here indicates that it is a constituent or active principle that has been isolated from the original herb. Also, the herb Huang Qi (Astragalus Membranaceus) has been show to have If you are seriously interested in this, please refer to the book Chinese Herbology & Pharmacology [ISBN: 0-9740635-0-9] by John K. Chen who is both a Western trained Pharmacologist and Chinese Herbologist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.188.225 (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regardless there are no citations for the individual herbs under the "herbs in use" section. The validity of the statements made in this section are therefore without merit.

203.127.44.11 (talk) I agree with the more critical comments that this article lacks reliable sources and scientific studies. To protect wikipedia as well as any one who may see the page, kindly place a disclaimer in bold at the start of the page stating that there is little or no scientific evidence to back up any of the claims herein. 203.127.44.11 (talk) 07:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)the doc203.127.44.11 (talk) 07:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Absolutely. The whole "Herbs in use" section makes many bold statements that are unsourced, and, frankly, unsupported by legitimate studies. Some statements are even put in quotes to give them credibility. But who is being quoted.
This is far more serious than an article on a butterfly that gives wrong wingspan information. This article receives 500 visitors a day, some of whom might make decisions based on this article that will affect their health.
I am therefore going to take a hatchet to a lot of the "Herbs in use". I suggest restoring only information that can be properly sourced. I have also tagged the whole article with { { Disputed } }. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay. I zapped a fair bit of content, and salt and peppered parts with "believe that" and "thought to". Please feel free to go much further and remove that stuff altogether. If Jimbo saw this article, his hair would stand up. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edits reverted[edit]

Thanks for the contributions, but at 20:05, 24 April 2011 I reverted your edits because the claims need to be sourced upon entry into the article. One can't simply make such claims as "...This herb is used to drain dampness and heat from the body...", mainly because, well, there's no evidence that it is true, or even makes sense scientifically. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reverted again. Sorry again. If you want to add the species names, etc. please do. But again, the content you are adding about the effects on the body of these substances is not fact. Statements like "...increases urination because the herb goes to the bladder channel and it clears heat as a result of the cold quality..." just make no sense. Qualifying the statement with the disclaimer: "...traditional beliefs hold that..." two sentences earlier, just isn't good enough. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, I reverted for the same reasons. I am now at 3RR and cannot revert again. Could another editor please look at what's going on and either allow or revert if this content is added back again. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Species mentioned in Chinese_herbology#Ginseng[edit]

Reads: "...Distinction should be made between Chinese ginseng (panax ginseng, ren shen), Siberian ginseng (eleutherococcus senticosus, ci wu jia) and American ginseng (panax quinquefolium, xi yang shen)..."

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just reverted the lot. Please add it again if you think it's worthwhile. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Content discussion - 24 April, 2011[edit]

"Thanks for the contributions, but at 20:05, 24 April 2011 I reverted your edits because the claims need to be sourced upon entry into the article. One can't simply make such claims as "...This herb is used to drain dampness and heat from the body...", mainly because, well, there's no evidence that it is true, or even makes sense scientifically. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)"

"is an underground stem that is one of the bitterest herbs used in Chinese medicine. while bitter taste is thought to dispel heat, purge the bowels and get rid of dampness by drying them out."

This herb being one of the most bitter herbs (as stated in the article) will logically drain heat and dampness just as the flavor portion of the article above explains. It's also a rhizome by the way.

I have been talking about the use of the herb from Chinese medical perspective. Being a doctor of Chinese medicine I am educated and qualified to provide this position, and there are many current and ancient materia medica to draw upon for understanding the traditional usage, the information on the usage of the herbs should include its actual usage rather than western medical scientific data, which doesn't really determine its usage today. however i have added the supposition 'is used to...blah blah' not 'is scientifically proven to'.

"I reverted again. Sorry again. If you want to add the species names, etc. please do. But again, the content you are adding about the effects on the body of these substances is not fact. Statements like "...increases urination because the herb goes to the bladder channel and it clears heat as a result of the cold quality..." just make no sense. Qualifying the statement with the disclaimer: "...traditional beliefs hold that..." two sentences earlier, just isn't good enough. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)"

Being that this is an article about chinese herbs and their usage, shouldn't information on how they are actually used by practitioners today be included? The actual 'how' of chinese herbs is rather poorly explained. Chinese herbology and the usage of the herbs as medicine through this medical system rely heavily on the 5 flavors, 4 natures and the interactions with the channels to explain the functions of the herbs. Also knowledge of basic theory (5 pathogens, internal and external causes of disease, channel and organ associations, organ functions) would help enable understanding of the how and why of chinese herbs.

Ginger has been proven through western medical research over and over to be a nausea treatment, but in china it was known for much longer because of the herbal information available. This is historical knowledge combined modern research to form what is almost common knowledge today, most women who go to an 'alternative' practitioner for morning sickness are given some form of ginger for treatment, ect. I find this article to be somewhat crude and i would dearly like to improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wren19 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my materia medica its just panax ginseng for the asian variety. Also wikipedia's article on ginseng shows the asian variety to be under the heading 'panax ginseng'. its the Araliaceae family but its not used in the nomenclature that i can see anywhere.

here is a quote from the ginseng wiki page: "Panax ginseng Asian ginseng (root)

According to Traditional Chinese Medicine, Panax ginseng promotes yang energy, improves circulation, increases blood supply, revitalizes and aids recovery from weakness after illness, and stimulates the body. It is available in four forms:" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wren19 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Salvia can be taken alone or consumed with other herbs, teas or pills" this is absolutely irrelevent and not specific to salvia, pretty much all herbs can be taken in this fashion. Deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wren19 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Meridians

The meridians refer to which organs the herb acts upon. For example, traditional beliefs hold that menthol is pungent, cool and is linked with the lungs and the liver, and since the lungs are the organ which protects the body from invasion from cold and influenza, menthol can help purge coldness in the lungs and invading heat toxins caused by hot "wind.""

The how the meridians are used in chinese herbal medicine is more than just the organs that they act upon. Meridians have skin pathways, internal pathways and specific organ mechanisms. Its not so cut and dry as so say that the meridian's involvement in directly related to the organ that the meridian coorsponds with.

Sorry there is no such thing as hot 'wind' in chinese medicine, its called a wind-heat invasion. Bad translation that someone must have refereed to. This is also a poor example, and actually incorrect. Menthol cannot purge coldness from the lungs because it is a cold herb, it will only make the lungs more cold with its cooling function. And the lungs protect the body from invasion of more than just cold, its wind, cold and heat, those are the 3 exterior conditions that the lung qi (wei gi) wards off. Better to say it wards of colds, because the invastions that the lung qi wards off are actually what we would see as the 'common cold' just different differentiations of it(All external invasions are considered instigated by wind, more feverish and sore throat = heat, more chills and achey= cold, runny nose = dampness). Changing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wren19 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to paste this over at Talk:Chinese herbology and continue the thread there. Many thanks for the thoughtful comments. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Source: User_talk:Anna_Frodesiak#Chinese_herbology

Response from Anna Frodesiak

I very much appreciate what you are saying, however Wikipedia is really just a reporting encyclopedia. We represent information from reliable sources. With great respect, content cannot be added to this article, and considered true for any of these reasons:

What is rock solid, wonderful fact, is, say, a peer-reviewed, double-blind study involving 5,000 people or so, that conclusively shows that a certain herb does something. Show me that, and I will personally take that herb for what ails me.
But, if that herb is considered effective today simply because it was considered effective 400 years ago based upon anicdotal evidence or an ancient theory based conjecture, then I will personally not take that herb for what ails me.
As for the ginseng species matter, I will let others sort that out.

Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Ginger

Here are some reputable sources linking studies or peer review of studies about ginger and nausea. http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/ginger-000246.htm http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10793599 http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20090514/ginger-may-root-out-nausea http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-05-14-ginger-chemotherapy_N.htm Also wiki article on 'morning sickness' lists ginger as a common remedy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_sickness Wren19 (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Bencao Gangmu would be an example of Chinese ancient materia medica. "Li Shizhen completed the first draft of the text in 1578, after conducting readings of 800 other medical reference books and carrying out 30 years of field study." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bencao_Gangmu

"Arguably the most important of these was the Compendium of Materia Medica (Bencao Gangmu) compiled during the Ming dynasty by Li Shizhen, which is still used today for consultation and reference." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_herbology

Another example of ancient materia medica is The Shennong Ben Cao Jing. "The Shénnóng Běn Cǎo Jīng (simplified Chinese: 神农本草经; traditional Chinese: 神農本草經; Wade–Giles: Shennung Ben Ts'ao King) is a Chinese book on agriculture and medicinal plants. Its origin has been attributed to the mythical Chinese emperor Shennong, who was said to have lived around 2800 BC. Researchers hypothesize this is a compilation of oral traditions written between about 300 B.C. and 200 AD." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shennong_Ben_Cao_Jing


Meridians

"The meridians, as that is not scientifically proven."

Much of the information that was already in the meridians section is not scientifically proven either. Certainly this quote from the section is not "The meridians refer to which organs the herb acts upon." This claim isn't scientific, yet it was in the section before I altered it. It's not even correct Chinese medical or herbal theory. Just because an herb acts on a specific channel doesn't mean it acts directly on the flesh organ associated. See menthol example below for further clarification as to how association with channel(meridian) does not necessarily indicate association with organ.

"The meridians refer to the 12 standard meridians or channels in the body that herbs can act upon. The meridians of the body correspond to specific organs."

This statement, while omitting much information, is more correct and true to actual Chinese medical theory, which seems to be the basis of these assertions anyway, not scientific proof.

Here is another bit that needed changed: "For example, traditional beliefs hold that menthol is pungent, cool and is linked with the lungs and the liver, and since the lungs are the organ which protects the body from invasion from cold and influenza, menthol can help purge coldness in the lungs and invading heat toxins caused by hot "wind.""

Much of this isn't necessarily provable by your standard of massive double blind studies, it is just repeating Chinese herbal theory rather crudely and with bad translation. "the lungs are the organ which protects the body from invasion from cold and influenza" This is information based on basic Chinese theory "basic theory (5 pathogens, internal and external causes of disease, channel and organ associations, organ functions) ", which you also claim is not scientifically proven. This is explaining a function of the lung organ through Chinese medical theory, which you claim isn't provable, so by your own logic this should be removed as well. Although it CAN be proven that this is how Chinese medical theory explains functions, you seem to be less concerned with the facts of Chinese medical theory and more worried about proving the claims. I think we should make a distinction between Chinese medical theory and western scientific research but i dont think all Chinese theory that 'isnt proven(often just misunderstood)' should be tossed out. There are many concepts that are proven even, especially organ functions.(example: the fact that the liver organ swells with blood at night while a person sleeps is Chinese medical theory AND western medical fact(Hole's Human Anatomy & Physiology 10th edition).) Here is a wiki quote that helps support my contention "TCM also looks at the functions of the organs rather than fixed areas and, therefore, describes different organs that are not actually physical, like the Triple Burner (San Jiao). This also leads to controversy about the validity of TCM, which comes a lot from the difficulty of translating and lack of knowledge about TCM concepts and Chinese culture." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lung_%28Chinese_medicine%29

It is mentioned that menthol is associated with the liver but it isn't really delved into, but it actually has no effect upon the liver organ itself, contrary to what seems to be implied. Rather its affect on the liver is through its ability to aleviate itching. This is part of Chinese medical theory about the cause of itching being associated with the liver energetic, not the actual flesh organ itself(see above wiki quote about TCM organs). Without understanding chinese medical theory, the channel associations are hard to understand. Here is a quote from "The Pharmacology of Chinese Herbs" which cites studies about menthol, and its usage by practitioners. "Menthol can desensitize sensory irritation, exert a counterirritant effect and reduce histamine-induced itching." http://books.google.com/books?id=xKGxTcF8u-sC&pg=PA219&lpg=PA219&dq=chinese+herb+menthol&source=bl&ots=AreNLs3J5w&sig=JOK2e8Hq22zrSe9HYACK6PsWeSE&hl=en&ei=S9-0TdnmC4WFtgfS5fHpDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFgQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=chinese%20herb%20menthol&f=false

"menthol can help purge coldness in the lungs and invading heat toxins caused by hot "wind."

If you read about the Therapeutic Uses of menthol in the book 'The Pharmacology Of Chinese Herbs' at the link above you will see that the practitioner uses the herb to dispel 'wind' and 'heat'. It does not dispel cold.

I changed it to this because it is factual about the actual usage of the herb, Chinese herbal theory and principles:

"The meridians of the body correspond to specific organs. For example, traditional beliefs hold that menthol is pungent, cool and goes to the lung and the liver channels. The lungs are the organ which protects the body from invasion from colds and influenza, the menthol can help cool the lungs and purge heat toxins caused by wind-heat invasion(a differential diagnosis for common cold)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wren19 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response to the sources you've provided

Okay. I see that you are trying to support content that you've added to this article with sources.

The trouble is that you are sourcing other Wikipedia articles.

Another problem is that those other Wikipedia articles that you are sourcing are unsourced.

Yet another problem, (and this is the real zinger), is that you are sourcing an unsourced part of Chinese herbology to support content that you've added to Chinese herbology.

And finally, you are sourcing a book that simply catalogues the healing powers of substances dating back more than 4,000 years. That doesn't seem like a credible source. Old doesn't make true. Even 200 years ago pharmacology books promoted mercury as a great thing to rub into your skin. Of course today, we all know that doing so makes you bonkers for about 6 months. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response

This book I provided as source is from 1999, its not hundreds of years old. I cited the ancient texts because you seemed to want clarification about what information ancients had at the time. "Ancient materia medica" This book I cited as my actual source is as follows "The Pharmacology of Chinese Medicine" from the year 1999, quite recent, with nicely sourced studies. Here is the link to the whole book: http://books.google.com/books?id=xKGxTcF8u-sC&pg=PA219&lpg=PA219&dq=chinese+herb+menthol&source=bl&ots=AreNLs3J5w&sig=JOK2e8Hq22zrSe9HYACK6PsWeSE&hl=en&ei=S9-0TdnmC4WFtgfS5fHpDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFgQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=chinese%20herb%20menthol&f=false

And yes much of the stuff in this section is unsourced, as are all the other sections. I would love to help source it all and give links to open source medical texts, but I didnt write this stuff to begin with and i'll have to do the research to find the texts and link it to each claim. I am only using the 6 excesses in chinese medicine to link to wind invasion as I saw was previously in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_medicine "For example, the disease entity of a common cold might present with a pattern of wind-cold in one patient, and with the pattern of wind-heat in another." If this part of the article links wind-heat to the 6 excesses section than every place it says wind-heat in reference to chinese medicine should also link to that place. I'm only continuing the pattern that has been established prior to my change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wren19 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Ginger

Here are some reputable sources linking studies or peer review of studies about ginger and nausea. None of these are wikipedia articles 

http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/ginger-000246.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10793599

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20090514/ginger-may-root-out-nausea

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-05-14-ginger-chemotherapy_N.htm

Also wiki article on 'morning sickness' lists ginger as a common remedy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_sickness <---This was only linked to show that Ginger is so common of a remedy for nausea that it is already listed here on the wiki site somewhere. No i didnt go and dig up a citation for the person who didnt add one to the morning sickness article, perhaps another time. My point is that this is common knowledge, and already much researched, i linked 4 articles that link studies about ginger, or that peer review them. "That doesn't seem like a credible source. Old doesn't make true." I simply added that this was ancient knowledge as well because that's what chinese medicine is, ancient knowledge, researched and tested on people and peer reviewed long long ago, we are just continuing the process today, and rediscovering what was already known. Western medical research shows that ginger treats nausea, and knowledge of this function is part of Chinese medicine, has been for a very long time. The fact that Chinese medicine knew about the function before western medicine proved it lends to the validity of the medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wren19 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On mercury

Dont be quick to judge eastern medicine by its usage of mercury. Eastern medicine wasn't the only medical system using mercury as treatment. We may think it stupid in retrospect but mercury was used in our own western medicine until fairly recent times, especially for treating syphilis. You cant throw out current day eastern medicine for its usage of mercury 200 years ago, western medicine is guilty of the same. Also you shouldn't throw out all of what the old materia medicas said, just because they used mercury for syphilis. The fever causing action of mercury was actually curative for some cases. Syphilis actually cannot tolerate heat very well and has been found to be cured by simple hot water exposure, such as at hot springs. The history and usage of mercury for syphilis and the discovery of the simple hot water cure such as found at hot springs is divulged in this book: "Green pharmacy: the history and evolution of western herbal medicine" by Barbara Griggs

Corroborating article at jama about hot springs for syphilis : http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/XXVIII/6/251.extract

Western Medicine's usage of mercury for syphilis: Up to the 1800's, mercury was used so liberally to nearly any ulcer found, that many patients were more injured from the treatment then from their ailment. The next chemical treatment to be developed specifically for syphilis was Potassium Iodide in the 1840's. This was when mercury was finally abandoned. Pretty recently.

Wiki article on mercury usage for syphilis in various forms of medicine, just to show that eastern medicine wasn't alone in its mercury usage. "Historical treatments

There were originally no effective treatments for syphilis. The Spanish priest Francisco Delicado wrote El modo de adoperare el legno de India (Rome, 1525) about the use of Guaiacum in the treatment of syphilis. He himself suffered from syphilis.[citation needed] Nicholas Culpeper recommended the use of heartsease (wild pansy), a herb with antimicrobial activities.[32][not in citation given] Another common remedy was mercury: the use of which gave rise to the saying "A night in the arms of Venus leads to a lifetime on Mercury".[33] It was administered multiple ways including by mouth,[citation needed] by rubbing it on the skin[citation needed] and by injection.[34][non-primary source needed] One of the more curious methods was fumigation, in which the patient was placed in a closed box with his head sticking out. Mercury was placed in the box and a fire was started under the box that caused the mercury to vaporize. It was a grueling process for the patient and the least effective for delivering mercury to the body.[citation needed] The use of mercury was the earliest known suggested treatment for syphilis.[verification needed] This has been suggested to date back to The Canon of Medicine (1025) by the Persian physician, Ibn Sina (Avicenna).,[35] although this is only possible if syphilis existed in the Old World prior to Columbus (see Origins section). Giorgio Sommariva of Verona is recorded to have used it for this purpose in 1496.[citation needed]" Wren19 (talk) 07:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response from Anna, again

I have a lot of issues with your reasoning, but I don't want to get into that.

The pharmacology of Chinese herbs was published in 1999, but that doesn't mean much. Also, I can't see the contents, only the cover.

Content from JAMA and NIH is welcome in the article. I'm pleased to see you mentioning good sources here. Please do add such references to the article.

Personally, I think this article should contain only what we know as fact. If somebody wants to start Traditional beliefs in Chinese herbology, aka Herbalism, then it can be filled with lots of statements that include: "practitioners believe that", "is thought to", etc.

But this article is called Chinese herbology. Although I can't even find "herbology" in the dictionary, and the lead of the article says nothing that makes any sense in terms of a definition, the definition is probably: "The branch of medicine concerned with the study of the action of herbs on the body."

But this article contains paragraph after paragraph of sentences preceded with "practitioners believe that..." it "is thought to...". Those are plain Weasel words. Maybe appropriate for Herbalism, but this article is supposed to be about what these herbs actually do, and how.

If one tried to go to Methylphenidate, and add "Some African witchdoctors believe that Methylphenidate will cool the blood to bring harmony to the body", it would be deleted on the spot.

If you want this article to be infomative and taken seriously, then it should be stripped down to include only content on the development of the remedies, the scientific background, safety testing, efficacy, etc. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chinese herbology

Fact of the matter is, this isnt an article on Methylpheidate, its Chinese herbology. The practice and use of chinese herbology is standardized, in fact in order to become certified to prescribe chinese herbs you must have a license. You have to take national examinations, akin to that nurses and doctors take to get their licenses, or just as a lawyer must take his bar exam. The information learned is through a system of diagnosis and the The Four Natures, The Five Tastes, and The meridians. This is the way practitioners look at and use the herbs. Specific chinese diagnosis, such as Blood Deficiency(akin to western diagnosis of anemia), according to chinese herbology this diagnosis requires the use of specific herbs that treat that specific diagnosis, ie herbs that tonify blood. Many of these herbs are actually studied Chinese Herbology & Pharmacology [ISBN: 0-9740635-0-9] by John K. Chen who is both a Western trained Pharmacologist and Chinese Herbologist. We had to do a project in school using his book, and concerning the herbs that 'tonify blood' they actually found that a great majority of them increased the hemablobin/hematocrit of the patient vs controls. Though 'tonify blood' may be a term that isnt used in western thought, its part of chinese medicine, its how chinese licensed herbalists diagnose and treat, and western style research can and does prove that they work in the method stated. To reduce the herbs to the level of western diagnosis and pharmacalogical substances is simply incorrect, chinese herbalists dont use western diagnosis. I understand that you have no knowledge of chinese diagnosis/treatment and the section explaining diagnosis in Traditional Chinese Medicine is rather short. Western doctors when they treat, they collect data, get their diagnosis, and treat based on diagnosis. Chinese medicine is the same. But when a patient has a 'cold' they aren't all treated the same by chinese medicine. The symptom differentiation determines the treatment, there is no one-cure-fits-all. At the very least each of the herbs in this section should include the actual classification system used by chinese herbology, The Four Natures, The Five Tastes, and The meridians. This is chinese herbology, so it should be explained through its own system which is previously outlayed in the article. Seems odd to say that chinese practitioners use this classification system and yet when describing the herbs they are not put into their own system as well. I believe a section should be included for each herb that states the actual factual The Four Natures, The Five Tastes, and The meridians. I call these facts because they are nationally standardized. How the chinese categorize these herbs is fact, its verifiable. Proving the claims requires first understanding the claims, you may not know what it means to have a 'wind cold invasion' but just because the words 'make no sense' to you because you havent studied chinese medicine doesnt mean they make no sense. This is a system of diagnosis and treatment, we dont treat diseases we treat people, and every person have a different disease manifestation. This is a complex system of diagnosis and treatment that takes data into account that western medicine doesnt use. Take for example the diagnosis section of the Traditional Chinese Medicine article here on wiki: "Typical examples of patterns

For each of the functional entities (qi, xuĕ, zàng-fǔ, meridians etc.), typical disharmony patterns are recognized; for example: qi vacuity and qi stagnation in the case of qi;[93] blood vacuity, blood stasis, and blood heat in the case of xuĕ;[94] Spleen qi vacuity, Spleen yang vacuity, Spleen qi vacuity with down-bearing qi, Spleen qi vacuity with lack of blood containment, cold-damp invasion of the Spleen, damp-heat invasion of Spleen and Stomach in case of the Spleen zàng;[95] wind/cold/damp invasion in the case of the meridians.[96] TCM gives detailed prescriptions of these patterns regarding their typical symptoms, mostly including characteristic tongue and/or pulse findings.[97][98] For example: 

   * "Upflaming Liver fire" (肝火上炎, pinyin: gānhuǒ shàng yán): Headache, red face, reddened eyes, dry mouth, nosebleeds, constipation, dry or hard stools, profuse menstruation, sudden tinnitus or deafness, vomiting of sour or bitter fluids, expectoration of blood, irascibility, impatience; red tongue with dry yellow fur; slippery and string-like pulse."

Now you may not find these claims to be proven by western medicine, but they are facts of TCM and are included because this is an article on TCM and you have to include the system of medicine as it is, without alteration or taking out bits that may not be proven. While the diagnosis Upflaming Liver fire is very likely to be a patient with high blood pressure(headache, redface , nosebleeds, these are all 'warning signs' a western practitioner must know. Nurses must know these other signs as a warning for blood pressure, they also take the actual blood pressure reading, but they are taught these warning signs as well, and to look for them in patients already diagnosed with high blood pressure because the medication may not be effective enough or stroke could be imminent) but there is nothing in this article about high blood pressure. Chinese doctors are taught that these are warning signs for blood pressure as well and we take BP readings too. We refer our patient out to a doctor if the BP is 140/90 or higher, the blood pressure is dangerously high and even if the patient is on medication they may need more medication or different medication, we just send them to see their doctor period. But that article says nothing about high blood pressure, though this is the first thing we are warned as chinese doctors about this pattern. That is because this article is about chinese medicine, stand alone. And I believe the actual, factual, nationally standardized herb classification system should be used when explaining the herbs. The medicine must be used in its stand alone form. I personally love coorelating western and eastern concepts, being both an RN and a chinese medical practitioner i find delight in the research that proves chinese medicine. However this article isnt Proving Chinese Herbology, its Chinese herbology, and it should include the standardized chinese system of classification that is previously explained in the article and used in the actual medicine. I believe there should be information and it should be seperated from the western claims, but it should be included, just as the diagnostic system in Traditional Chinese Medicine includes the actual system used. I'd like other opinions on this as well, being that you have no training in eastern medicine, and probably not western trained either there should be others adding their imput and advice. Wren19 (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Encyclopedic View

I know it would be nice to say 'use this herb for this condition and here's the double blind study to prove it', but that's not what wikipedia is for, this isn't a place for people to come up with their own treatments. And besides, many of these 'chinese' herbs are 'western' herbs too, and are used in western herbology and are already studied in that light(ginger, cinnamon, cardamom, fennel, and so on, all these are part of both western and eastern herbology). The point of this is to provide information about Chinese herbs in its own context, and the point of this article certainly isn't meant to prove any claims of Chinese medicine, it should merely state them. This article should explain Chinese herbs in the system they are used in. People should be discouraged from using wikipedia articles to determine treatment for their condition. Providing the complex information in its own system, while it may be confusing, is the only way to give a factual, encyclopedic view on the matter. People should see the complexity and various factors involved and it should overwhelm them slightly, you shouldn't use this page to decide on treatment for your condition, this page should convince you that the Chinese system is so complex that they should seek a licensed professional for herbal consultation, not take it into their own hands. Wren19 (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Final parting words from Anna

You state: "...this isn't a place for people to come up with their own treatments...". Although this article isn't intended to contain treatment advice, it should still contain factual information.

You state "...proven by western medicine...". Western medicine uses the scientific method. China, when they put a rocket into space, uses the scientific method. This is the globally accepted method for determining fact.

Furthermore, Chinese methods of diagnosis and determining efficacy are not sound science -- Western or Chinese.

When this article uses terms like "practitioners believe that", "is thought to", etc., then this article reads like Herbalism. You claim the value of these herbs is based upon fact, then this article should contain facts, and proof that these facts were determined in a scientific way, not by ancient dogma that is unproven and has no basis in science.

I really don't see this conversation going anywhere. I don't think we can agree. Others can pick this up where I am leaving it off. Best wishes and happy editing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Final

So we have a.phrodesiac who thinks her 'western/scientific' medical view is better than its actual 55% success rate (stated by bestdoctors.com long ago and since removed) berating TCM (success rate unknown). Totally pathetic discussion. Educated and picky (but sounding at times like an intolerant bigot) not familiar with the many limitations of the medical model versus not as able to articulate due to an ancient methodology and terms which doesn't translate well into modern English or the factual nature of the very flawed medical model. If any of the health systems had more than 90% success rate of healing people then they should be the ones critical of those with lesser success rates, certainly not the medical model which buries their many failures or shuffles them off to hospices... at least a million a year in North America!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.52.80 (talk) 11:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Man, I'm so tired of these ad hominem rants. Seriously, if you have any source you'd like to contribute or discuss - please be our guest. But throwing around words like "pathetic", "picky" and "bigot" are not going to bring anyone anywhere; especially if they're directed towards a good-faith editor like Anna Frodesiak. We're all just volunteers here, you know? Mallexikon (talk) 06:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New strategies for clinical trials?[edit]

"New strategies to evaluate the effects of Chinese medicine in a rigorous scientific manner are being developed.[1]" - I can't find anything in this source

  1. ^ Zhang C, Jiang M, Lu A.,"A traditional Chinese medicine versus Western combination therapy in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: two-stage study protocol for a randomized controlled trial." Trials. 2011;12:137

supporting this claim. And what new strategies are those? Could someone please clarify? --Mallexikon (talk) 07:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shark fin soup[edit]

"Ecological effects are greater than just on the species used in TCM. The worldwide shark population has been devastated to a small fraction of its original population by a growing demand for shark fin soup. Sharks fins are cut off and the live shark which is then dumped back in the ocean to sink and slowly die. Once considered only for rare occasions, with a growing Asian middle class, there is an accompanying demand for shark fin. Sharks take many years to mature to give birth. The problem does not only affect sharks. Since sharks are the top predator in the food chain, the impact on shark populations threatens to throw the entire marine ecosystem out of balance, with an unpredictable outcome.[1]"
Shark fin soup is obviously a problem, but as far as I know, it's a cultural problem, not a medical one. If someone'd like to re-insert this information into the article, please provide a source documenting the use of shark fin as a medicinal. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 04:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. ^ New York Times, 3-6-2011, p.1

List of 50 herbs[edit]

A number of the herbs listed here (16) are not in common use. Many also are not original Chinese herbs (e. g. yang jin hua). The list should be rewrittten from scratch and include first of all the true original Chinese herbs whose use is attested since antiquity in the classics (Sheng Nong Ben Cao, Shan Han Lun, Jin Kui Yao Nue) and/or are the most representative and widely used.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, good idea. Let me know if you need any help with it. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I might be able to supply a list but I am afraid it would exceed 50. Unless I make an arbitrary selection. Thanks for the attention.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This section of the article is problematic. It has been pointed out by others that there is no consensus regarding a list of "50 fundamental herbs". I teach this subject and I have never come across this notion. Its strange that we have 3 sections with very different formats listing herbs. Perhaps we keep the detailed info on the most common herbs up top, and turn the rest into a simple list of substances? In any event, its best to eliminate the "50 fundamental herbs" section or rename it. Herbxue (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last Edit[edit]

Sorry, the blog post does mention poaching, but the blog is itself not a reliable source.Curb Chain (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And the dictionary source does not mention poaching, so including it is irrelevant.Curb Chain (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
... Sigh... ok, as you wish. So I split the sentence in two, which didn't really change the meaning at all. Then I included the source again. Hope you got a kick out of it... --Mallexikon (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weaning?[edit]

I was wondering if there were any herbs for that or other breast related conditions in TCM? Vitex agnus-castus apparently was known in ancient China but used for unrelated purposes? Richiez (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

pseudoscience at its worst[edit]

great now we got people writing things like where these herbs go to for meridians.

you guys ever thought meridians are just the imagination of ancient chinese?

go make your own wiki you pseudos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.229.96 (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sir, with upmost respect, I agree with all your opinions. Yes, TCM is not a scientifically based medicine, but here on wikipedia we document what has been documented. Traditional Chinese Medicine has been documented very voluminously, such, we discuss TCM on wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with the facts you state, but it is in loggerheads with our goal of documentation of knowledge, here, on wikipedia. Curb Chain 04:41, May 19, 2013‎ (UTC)
Yes, 27.252.229.96's first commentary has been reverted, but the next three deletions of content are correct, since that content violated WP:MEDRS. The only way to keep such claims in the article is by phrasing them in such a manner that it is clear that they are unscientific and unproven claims. Not only do we not make medical recommendations here, we do not recommend nonsense, but we do describe it for what it is. Curb Chain, do you have a suggestion as to how that can be done? -- Brangifer (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks BullRangifer for mentioning me. I don't have any suggestions as to how to improve this article. Is that what you are asking? If we can improve this article and others by edits such as 27.252.229.96's by how he eliminated the prose violating our protocols, then I would do it or support it.Curb Chain (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redundant article[edit]

This is largely a redundant article. There is an article on Traditional Chinese medicine. What is this duplicate article doing in maninspace? QuackGuru (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, read it. How you come to think that TCM is equivalent to Chinese herbology kind of eludes me. --Mallexikon (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simpler wording was better[edit]

This change was too wordy IMHO. QuackGuru (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have tweaked the wording and it seems quite "simple" and easy to understand to me. Gandydancer (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the wording should be neutrally written. QuackGuru (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

editorial[edit]

Per the first section of this article.

"A Nature editorial described TCM as "fraught with pseudoscience""

The following sentence will be removed since an editoral is an "opinion". I do think there are wikipedia guidelines that prohibit the use of opinion in a wikipedia article such as this. Therefore, I will REMOVE said sentence until someone can locate a scientific basis to include such said sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 04:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC) Gizziiusa (talk) 04:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)gizziiusaReply[reply]

The use of this Nature editorial as been discussed at length on talk:Traditional Chinese medicine. Chinese herbology as "fraught with pseudoscience" should stay. I reverted the page to include this phrase. Jim1138 (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most reasonable editors in those discussions consider this use of the editorial inappropriate. It is opinion, and we don't even really know who wrote it. It does not make sense to assert it as fact in WP's voice without stronger sources. Herbxue (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Most reasonable editors"? What is the definition of reasonable? Where is this criteria defined in Wikipedia policy? Please leave the page as-is until consensus is established. See wp:consensus. Jim1138 (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to be clear, I did not mean to imply that you are not reasonable.Herbxue (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Herbxue: Please address my questions. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Poor wording on my part - what I mean to say is that I think it is more reasonable to clearly attribute editorials in the text, rather than present it in WP's voice. Herbxue (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP's voice? The line is clearly attributed to Nature. WP's voice? Nothing on Wikipedia should be wp:original. Wikipedia has, or should have, no voice. Jim1138 (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 38 external links on Chinese herbology. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chinese herbology. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Chinese herbology. 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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chinese medicine[edit]

Chinese unconventional medicine is not nonsense. The more herbal medicine. Tradition is known for over 5,000 years. And the fact that Western scientists can not verify whether this is true only shows how much our scientific method is backward. For example, only in 2011 the Herschel telescope The scientists thought they were out of the ground, but it took them 230 years to prove it. It was only for a long time that they hypothesized the theory, so-called "pseudoscience". It turned out, But do not. Please do not delete the statement. AlexTrevex (talk) 10:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What you posted makes no sense. When I try to make sense of it, it just gets worse. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions on how to improve the article[edit]

These are some ideas I am interested in researching in and potentially adding to the article to make it more informative. What do you all think?

1.Go back to other sections and see what other information I can add to make the article even more informative 2.Try to add sources to the parts that have been flagged as not reliable 3.Write about Chinese herbology in western culture (accepted/not accepted in medicine/cuisine/etc.) 4.Chinese herbology v.s American medicine 5.Add more about the history of how Chinese medicine and how it came to be — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atc424 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources for "Actions"[edit]

For each of the herb sources were insufficient sources to support presumed physiological effects identified as "Actions". The actions and sources removed may be sourceable to some herbalism reference, but would not stand to a science-based source. Let's discuss here. --Zefr (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I concur. MrBill3 (talk) 12:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further as a guide is this WikiEducation tutorial for medical topics which states: "Note that MEDRS applies to statements, not just articles. So, if you're writing about a plant in a botany article and decide to describe its medical uses, those statements would require MEDRS sourcing." --Zefr (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the background from the Herbalism article addressing the absence of credibility for most Chinese herbal sources, practices, and products used as medicines. In a new subhead under the section Herbs in use, I suggest a cover statement to define the pseudoscience and absence of rigor and therapeutic evidence addressing all of the herbs that follow in that section. Draft: Herbology is a pseudoscience practice with unreliable product quality, potential for safety hazards, and misleading health advice.<refs> Generally, there is an absence of high-quality scientific research on herbology practices and product effectiveness for anti-disease activity.<refs> --Zefr (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Zefr, you missed adding your sig. I largely agree with these proposed edits. I would change the first to "pseudoscientific" and perhaps qualify "misleading health advice" with often or frequently, depending on what the sources specifically say. The second sounds right on, so long as sources are provided and support. MrBill3 (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source for ginseng species[edit]

Hi, I'm trying to improve the ginseng section of the article. It's common in English to say "ginseng" without regard for what kind of ginseng it is. But, that's a problem since there are three different species of plants being called ginseng. My original solution was to put a statement at the beginning, making this clear at the start of the section, (but it's been reverted a couple of times). The section was already listing out the different species, later in it anyway. But now, I'm thinking it's better to separate these three herbs out into three separate entries, since they are totally different plants in both a botanical sense and TCM sense.

So sections would be like this, for clarity and accuracy, with pinyin first.
• Ren Shen. (人参) Chinese/Korean Ginseng
• Xi Yang Shen. (西洋参) American Ginseng
• Ci Wu Jia. (刺五加) Siberian Ginseng
My main issue with the current form of this section, is that it mentions colors of ginseng without making clear which species it's talking about! It will be very confusing to people wanting to learn about "ginseng".
Thanks for reading, all the best, Thorbachev (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thorbachev: first, new discussion topics go to the bottom of the page. There are already Wikipedia articles on various species of ginseng, Panax ginseng, American ginseng, and Siberian ginseng. All of these could be linked without much discussion. In your edits that I reverted, you were proposing the various ginseng species have different biological or health-promoting properties, for which there is no high-quality scientific evidence. Any such statement, if true, needs a WP:SCIRS or WP:MEDRS source. --Zefr (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I'll make another edit soon, taking all this into account. Thorbachev (talk) 06:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removing end of a sentence[edit]

Hi all, I am going to remove this sentence-ending - "with little or no rigorous evidence of efficacy.[5]" - becuase I clicked on the linked article to read this evidence, and I saw that it referred to AFRICAN traditional medicine - not CHINESE traditional medicine. Thanks all Gam3r mojo (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. This study is from The South African Medical Journal, so it is reasonable that it would be discussing usage by African people, but it appears this study is about herbology more widely. The lead is a summary of the body of the article, so if this is supported later, it's acceptable to use such sources for convenience. There are also WP:FRINGE issues. Please gain consensus before removing this again, thanks. Grayfell (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Use of Chinese medicine in China as of 2021[edit]

I want to instate new information from a study conducted in 2021 about the use of Chinese herbs in China

see the following article [1] Wang, C., Sun, S. & Ding, X. The therapeutic effects of traditional chinese medicine on COVID-19: a narrative review. Int J Clin Pharm 43, 35–45 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-020-01153-7

I would like to reach a consensus on the addition of this information from the editors. As of now I am waiting patiently for your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToltecShaman (talk • contribs) 00:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well of course a review of articles published in low-quality TCM journals sponsored by the Chinese government is going to find a positive effect of TCM... JoelleJay (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My edits, (which I see from the edit history of the article are supported by a number of different editors), Were based on the fact that the source supplied by ToltecShaman is unreliable. I also objected to the removal of a perfectly well sourced statement regarding the "fraught with pseudoscience" nature of the topic. The policy that applies is WP:RS and the guideline WP:MEDRS. See Also Traditional Chinese Medicine where OP wants to make similar POV edits.
I note that consensus supports my edits. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Chinese herbal teas do heal diseases. That's a fact. But, wait, there is a trick: Chinese herbal teas are filled with allopathic medicines. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11096-020-01153-7. ((cite web)): Missing or empty |title= (help)
Categories