≡ Menu
Home Blog

Chinese integrative medicine

‘Norman Bethune,’ by Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library [flickr.com/thomasfisherlibrary]. License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/

Western healthcare did not introduce the concept of integrative medicine. It first appeared in 1950’s China, though with a different name. Now China continues with Integration 2.0 as it steps up its promotion of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM).

This is an opportunity to showcase the benefits of this Eastern healthcare system. But I think it may be the wrong direction, or at least a speed bump on a road towards progress.

China aims to further integrate TCM and Western medicine—in one way—by “creating new drugs.” This drug development will be based on a guideline described by China Topix as “indigenous intellectual property.”

Such intellectual property is not explicitly defined. But it sounds a lot like a reference to Chinese herbs and classical herbal formulas. The remaining step, it seems, is to “pharmaceuticalize” Chinese medicine.

The present initiative is akin to the 1950’s communist period when Mao Zedong westernized Chinese medicine to create what he termed, a “New Medicine,” which became known as “Traditional Chinese Medicine.” The change was driven more by economics and politics rather than any health initiative. [footnote]

One example of this less-than-exemplary change is that the Communist Party redefined acupuncture points with functions and indications, as if they were Western drugs. This superseded the classical view of acupuncture points as designations along connective tissue planes that integrated movement and performance of the entire body. The negative effect is that specific acupuncture points are now often selected to treat specific symptoms rather than address the body as a whole.

When one paradigm supersedes another while addressing integration, it is the modern equivalent of Mao’s New Medicine. It is the extinguishing of one medicine for the sake of another, not necessarily to benefit health. Therefore, while improvements in medicine are always welcome, one should be wary of contemporary buzzwords such as integration and innovation.

Footnote:

For more reading on the communist enactment of Chinese medicine, reference “Chinese Medicine in Early Communist China,” by Kim Taylor. Access my full summary of the book here.

{ 0 comments }

Caveman Acupuncture, Re-Revisited

otzi recreation

‘Caveman,’ by Ian Dexter Marquez [flickr.com/iandexter]. License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

Since Ötzi was found in 1991, he has been resurrected in headlines every few years, which triggers discussions about what he might reveal about acupuncture.

Ötzi was a caveman, well-preserved in the snow caps of the Italian Alps. His body was tagged with tattoos around acupuncture points commonly used for pain relief, suggesting to some speculators that cavemen discovered acupuncture a few thousand years before China.

The latest mention of Ötzi appeared in Science News (January 2016), which conjured a letter to the editor about his acupuncture connection (Science News).

Poking at areas of pain is simply instinctual. Humans within and without China have likely been doing it since the dentate gyrus—apparently responsible for our sense of curiosity (Ref. Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute)—formed in the hippocampus of our brains. And inserting sharp objects into painful areas of the body probably started shortly after man developed the first tool (In Africa. Not China or the Italian Alps).

But none of that was acupuncture, per se, because there was no rational basis for jabbing at the pain. Acupuncture, however, is rational.

On the origin of acupuncture, it is accurate to say that China was the first to organize a body of knowledge and to correlate a systems theory with clinical practice. All for sticking needles into the body to benefit health. (Originally, they were not needles but stones, bones or thorns.)

{ 0 comments }