Traditional Chinese Medicine – A Scientific Explanation

Traditional Chinese Medicine – A Scientific Explanation
hi2u Nov 03, 2014 15:51

To start off, I am not a TCM apologist or user, and I have not studied it in any meaningful detail. But I know it gets trashed a lot by people on this site and by westerners in general. I’m only interested in a scientific defense of TCM, and so I’d like to share an interesting scientific defense that I’ve read a few years ago.

 

TCM does not have the nutritional aspect of western medicine, such as vitamins, minerals, and the like. That is because TCM does not work by supplementing a lack of nutrition. Instead, TCM works on the ribonucleic level of gene expression and has some ribonucleic components (snRNAs) that control gene expression. Your body produces these ribonucleic components naturally to control expression of certain genes. Thus, TCM increases production of certain proteins, which may help treat a root cause of a health problem. There’s a Chinese saying that goes “western medicine treats the symptoms, but Chinese medicine treats the source.” If this scientific explanation is true, this saying might hold some weight.

 

I couldn’t find the original article, but I did find another article that described how one TCM works by inhibiting a ribonucleic component (tRNA), thus inhibiting gene expression and protein synthesis. The article can be found here. http://www.scripps.edu/news/press/2012/20121223schimmel.html

Tags:Health & Environment

18 Comments

All comments are subject to moderation by eChinacities.com staff. Because we wish to encourage healthy and productive dialogue we ask that all comments remain polite, free of profanity or name calling, and relevant to the original post and subsequent discussion. Comments will not be deleted because of the viewpoints they express, only if the mode of expression itself is inappropriate. Please use the Classifieds to advertise your business and unrelated posts made merely to advertise a company or service will be deleted.

DrMonkey

TCM treatments are broad, and your explanation would cover only treatments with oral and topical medicine. Most drugs (TCM or not) work like that: one molecule happens to plugs into a cell receptor. It can your own cells, or bacteria. A plant, an animal or a mushroom might happen to have one molecule, or a cocktail of molecules that will plug in the right cell receptors, fooling your little bodily chemistry or some bacteria, with effects ranging from pain relief to killing harmful germs. The mechanism you describe is possible (direct interaction with the DNA/RNA) and have been observed, but it's very rare, too rare to be a generic explanation. The problem with TCM 1) The dosage problem : the quantity of the interesting molecules is only approximatively measured. The same plant might produce various amount of a given molecule depending on lots of factors, from yearly weather to soil, hybridation with surrounding plants, etc. 2) The analysis problem : while you can discover by chance or observation that one plant does well with someone with specific symptom... explanations based on ying, yang, chi, hot, cold are just not quite working. TCM does not get the mechanism of action right, it does not give you the correct chain of cause and effect. It matters, because it allows for far better prognostic, prescription and dosage.

Nov 18, 2014 15:22 Report Abuse

hi2u

I don't disagree with what you said. But like I said, I'm only interested in a scientific defense of TCM. I won't defend TCM on TCM terms. TCM may be broad, but I'm optimistic that science will be able to explain it (the ones that have an explanation of course). Also, besides oral and topical medicine, what other kinds of medicine are there? And don't say up the ass.

Nov 18, 2014 17:35 Report Abuse

MrTibbles

Wow, this is just insane. Look, if you use modern research techniques, yes you might find that 2000 years of trial and error TCM practices have some results, and they may work even deeper on a molecular level AS ALL CHEMICALS DO. But, and this is incredibly important: There is NO WAY IN HELL that 2000 years ago magic Chinese shamans even KNEW about RNA, DNA, or gene expression - and they sure as hell couldn't have "seen" problems in it by taking your pulse and looking at your tongue. Sure, there are some discoveries made about certain (and NOT MANY, btw) TCM medicines that have an effect for this or that, but this in no way "validates" or provides "scientific answers" to the way TCM works (or in all honesty, DOESN'T). Here's a story: Way back in the 5th century BC, a guy named Hippocrates wrote about a bitter white powder extracted from willow bark that eased aches and pains. This stuff was used for CENTURIES in it's basic form, what we'll call salicylic acid (a chemical!). No one really knew why it worked, but it did, so it was "medicine". The only problem is that it often caused severe cramps and internal bleeding if used in high doses. Not until 1899 when a German chemist, trying to help his son, mixed it with some acetyl compounds (brilliant guy who figured out acid hurts to drink/eat) made acetylsalicylic acid. You might know this as Aspirin. Even at this point, no one knew how it worked until 1970. The guys that did won a Nobel prize... Again, the ancient Greeks were using a basic form of this as early as the 5th century BC. If I tried to state that "this ancient Greek medicine works at a molecular level by inhibiting protein synthesis of COX2 proteins to dull nerve receptors from sensing pain", it would technically be correct, but the ancient Greeks did not know this. They knew "eat this, helps stop the pain." Just as all "traditional" medicines evolved - trial and error. You might find some analysis of certain compounds to reveal some interesting results and maybe even some new uses - but always remember this: You're talking about a form of "therapy" based on magic energy (Qi - never even remotely proven to exist), weather conditions attributed to organs (damp-liver-wind), 2000 years of trial and error, superstition, and amazing ideas such as "hey, this root looks like a heart, therefore it's good for the heart!" and "Hey, this is good for your penis because IT IS a penis!" And, just as a final note, let's look to the Chinese themselves. If TCM really worked as proposed, why do they give you IV antibiotics for everything from a cold to a broken leg? Because it's the one medicine they've had in recent history that produced RESULTS.

Nov 17, 2014 01:18 Report Abuse

hi2u

The story of aspirin is just like some Chinese medicine. Find something that works through trial and error, and then science will catch up to explain it. I wouldn't be surprised if the ancient Greeks thought that the pain-relieving white powder was magic powder from Zeus.

Nov 17, 2014 09:45 Report Abuse

rasklnik

Do you understand what an apologist is? Somebody who defends something; hence apologia pro vita sua "a defense of his life" You are defending TCM, hence you, indeed an apologist. It's like saying "I'm not defending pizza hut, but the pizza is really good!"

Nov 13, 2014 12:38 Report Abuse

hi2u

Actually I think some TCM probably is a lie, so tell me what kind of TCM apologist does that make me?

Nov 13, 2014 14:04 Report Abuse

rasklnik

I read the article, and it did NOT say TCM a Scientific explanation. It said that a certain herb has a certain effect, namely (lowers fever temperature) and goes on to explain why. -It didn't discuss qi, or yin, or any other silly TCM stuff at all.

Nov 13, 2014 16:17 Report Abuse

hi2u

"It said that a certain herb has a certain effect, namely (lowers fever temperature) and goes on to explain why." Bingo! The article explains the science behind why an herb used in TCM is effective. Were you seriously expecting the article to discuss the effectiveness in terms of qi and yin? What part of "A Scientific Explanation" gave you that impression?

Nov 13, 2014 16:44 Report Abuse

Samsara

"What part of 'A Scientific Explanation' gave you that impression?" --- That would be the part where you said "Traditional Chinese Medicine - A Scientific Explanation". What you have provided is an explanation that ONE type of plant can manufacture protein. So your title should have been "A herb - A Scientific Explanation". --- The confusion stems from you equating one herb's properties with a scientific explanation for TCM (which is an entire field of medicine based on qi energy and other superstitions). --- In the article you refer to one herb as "TCM". However, the "Traditional Chinese Medicine" in the title CLEARLY implies the field as a whole. Basic semantic trickery.

Nov 13, 2014 20:23 Report Abuse

hi2u

"In the article you refer to one herb as "TCM"". No, I clearly said that the article describes how "one" TCM works. Other TCM works in other ways as I already described. Thus "A" scientific explanation of TCM. Basic grammar should tell you that there could be other explanations.

Nov 14, 2014 10:13 Report Abuse

Samsara

"Traditional Chinese Medicine" in the title CLEARLY implies the field of medicine, not a single plant. Whether you give one or more explanations is not the issue.

Nov 14, 2014 21:40 Report Abuse

hi2u

""Traditional Chinese Medicine" in the title CLEARLY implies the field of medicine, not a single plant." That's exactly right, so what's your point? The "single plant" in the article is just one TCM, as I already stated at least four times on this blog, but you seem to have problems keeping facts straight, or have difficulty in basic reading comprehension. "Whether you give one or more explanations is not the issue." So tell me, what is the issue? I gave "A" scientific explanation of TCM "as a whole", exactly as the title implies. Then I posted an article describing how "one" TCM works. Only a fool would equate the "one" TCM in the article to "TCM" as a whole.

Nov 16, 2014 12:32 Report Abuse

Samsara

Clearly stating a cause-and-effect hypothesis that is testable (and thus open to disproof) is science. Using words (whether mystical or scientific) to obfuscate and avoid testing is the opposite of science. --- Apologists for TCM use increasingly obscure definitions of what TCM does to EVADE the need for proof and evidence. Depending on the terminology used, this makes TCM either pseudoscience or mysticism. --- Using buzzwords like “expression of genes” may sound impressive (if you’re retarded) but you haven’t explained what that means, or given any examples of how raw plant matter affects human genes. Any such examples would, of course, be testable in a lab. --- Apart from occasional organ damage caused by plant toxins, TCM does not have medical effects that can be predicted or demonstrated.

Nov 12, 2014 13:10 Report Abuse

hi2u

"Apologists for TCM use increasingly obscure definitions of what TCM does to EVADE the need for proof and evidence." Nothing in my blog post is an "obscure definition", and I already said I'm not a TCM apologist. "Using buzzwords like “expression of genes” may sound impressive (if you’re retarded) but you haven’t explained what that means" Expression of genes means production of certain proteins. I explained that clearly in the blog post. "or given any examples of how raw plant matter affects human genes." Um, I just gave an example in the article. You clearly did not read it, or are science illiterate. "TCM does not have medical effects that can be predicted or demonstrated." Again, refer to the article, which explains how one TCM works by inhibiting tRNA molecules. I learned about them in high school biology. There is definitely some bs TCM being promoted for financial gain. This blog post is just to inform that some TCM may actually be legit and is backed by science. Just because you don't understand some science terms, that doesn't mean it is "pseudoscience or mysticism."

Nov 12, 2014 17:07 Report Abuse

Samsara

In a large enough group of ingredients, SOME (due to the law of averages, NOT due to ancient knowledge of mystical forces) will have dietary value. This does not mean TCM (which utilises all sorts of raw plant matter, with no testable cause-and-effect) has a scientific explanation. --- If I were to formulate a type of medicine based on my belief in magical food fairies, some of the hundreds of random things I convinced people to eat would indeed have benign chemical effects inside their bodies (like the synthesis of protein). Others would damage their organs because of natural toxins. These effects would in no way give scientific legitimacy to my claims of wisdom or my fairy-based doctrine. --- Chinese people’s inability to recognise the difference between scientifically verified medicine and random compounds from nature is a real problem with unfortunate results. The likelihood of damaging your organs is probably higher than the benefit you might get from accidentally eating something that manufactures protein.

Nov 12, 2014 21:02 Report Abuse

hi2u

Now you're just spouting nonsense which has no relation to the topic at hand. In the article I linked, the effects of one TCM were proven in the lab. It makes no difference whether the people who take it believe in "magical food fairies" or not. The point is some TCM has health benefits that can be proven in the lab, hence the title of this blog post "Traditional Chinese Medicine – A Scientific Explanation".

Nov 13, 2014 11:57 Report Abuse

margotfluitsma

Very interesting article.

Nov 12, 2014 08:36 Report Abuse