For example, it is believed that "Chinese medicine can't judge eunuchs by taking the pulse", for example, it is considered that "grasping the pulse with silk" is a "life-saving straw" for Chinese medicine. Diagnosing whether a new person is a eunuch can neither rely on pulse diagnosis nor rely on instruments. Hand palpation is simple and direct. Both Chinese and western medicine have the diagnosis of "looking, smelling and asking", but Chinese medicine studies it more carefully. This kind of criticism, which is ignorant of the diagnostic technology of traditional Chinese medicine, is really ridiculous and outrageous. It's just the skill of Journey to the West and the Monkey King to feel the pulse. Those of us who study Chinese medicine don't know that it comes from that professional book of Chinese medicine, but it is imposed on Chinese medicine by some distorted masters to criticize the unscientiousness of Chinese medicine.
Second, the diagnosis of western medicine is half-solved, and the diagnostic criteria are modified without authorization, denying the curative effect of Chinese medicine.
For example, for the diagnosis of liver cirrhosis, I think I have set a "liver biopsy is the gold standard for the diagnosis of liver cirrhosis", but I can't find the professional books on which this statement is based, and I don't know what stage the liver nodules have reached, let alone what the most commonly used criteria for the diagnosis of liver cirrhosis are in hospitals. Liver biopsy, because it will cause certain damage to the liver, patients are generally reluctant to take this method unless the situation is unknown and can not be diagnosed. The professional works of western medicine all say that the diagnosis can be established according to the opening of collateral circulation, the damage of liver function, the appearance or history (cause) of liver disease, which is also the most commonly used method in western medicine hospitals at present.
Because amateur critics are not professional doctors, have never been to a hospital for internship, and have never studied internal medicine seriously and systematically, they can only publish some strange theories. It seems that all doctors in the hospital are amateurs and can't diagnose, but only amateur critics really understand diagnosis, experts and authorities. Without his consent and approval, it is misdiagnosis. At this time, even if Chinese medicine cured diseases that western medicine could not cure, it would not count. This "authoritative theory" that "Chinese medicine cured diseases that western medicine could not cure because western medicine misdiagnosed them" is not afraid of laughing and hurting others' stomachs. Whether Chinese medicine is effective or not can not be decided by an amateur western doctor who knows nothing about Chinese medicine (see the fourth analysis below).
Third, amateur critics like to criticize TCM out of context.
For example, I like to criticize the rhinoceros horn entries in Compendium of Materia Medica, and I like to copy one or two sentences in front and one or two sentences behind, instead of analyzing and understanding them in the overall context. This behavior is like taking tape processing as evidence, disconnecting and extracting other people's words, and then editing them. Why doesn't the court recognize audio-visual products as evidence? The reason is that these audio-visual products can be edited. These amateur critics also criticized the stool in Compendium of Materia Medica as medicine, but they didn't go deep into folk life at all, and they didn't know that people used stool to solve the poisoning of Lysimachia christinae, because stool could induce vomiting and gastric lavage. Of course, due to the limitation of historical conditions, many dirty things are no longer used as medicine. We amateur critics still have a hard time telling Li Shizhen, who has been dead for hundreds of years, and Li Shizhen, who knows under the spring, will never forgive these rogue criticisms. Li Shizhen's contribution to mankind was highly praised by UNESCO, and Li was rated as a great ancient scientist and historical and cultural celebrity. I wonder if these amateur critics can enjoy the same honor as Li Shizhen because of their "contribution" to TCM criticism after their death.
These amateur critics also made a stupid mistake, that is, they interpreted Chairman Mao's "What's wrong with Hua Tuo's helpless bugs" as Chairman Mao's criticism of Chinese medicine, but they didn't know Chairman Mao's famous saying that Chinese medicine is a great "treasure house" of the Chinese nation and should be "excavated" (the original words can be found in relevant books).
These amateur critics like to understand it literally and then criticize the cases of traditional Chinese medicine. For example, "Can physical examination diagnose liver cirrhosis?" They don't know that many people find cancer and other diseases in physical examination. They are happy to find the "handle" from the simple description of the case, but they don't know that the general practice of hospital diagnosis is that if liver cirrhosis is suspected by blood test and B-ultrasound, it is necessary to repeat blood test and B-ultrasound and check other aspects (such as collateral circulation opening) to make a diagnosis. In their view, the professional doctors in the hospital are all bastards, and they are not so good at analysis and can diagnose other people's diseases at will.
4. Amateur critics think that the ancient cases of TCM were treated randomly and have no credibility.
They think that ancient Chinese medicine did not know about parasites at all, and that Zhang Zhongjing's description of ascaris in Treatise on Febrile Diseases was random or accidental. We don't analyze it from a medical point of view, but we can know that the ancients have realized that there are parasites such as roundworms. Otherwise, how could the ancients invent the word "cockroach" without seeing anything?
If the records in Treatise on Febrile Diseases are not reliable, then why do famous doctors in past dynasties realize that the prescription is particularly effective when they use it to treat diseases? Far away, let's say Ye Gaoren, editor-in-chief of Internal Medicine (the sixth edition of college textbooks), who is an expert in kidney disease with integrated traditional Chinese and western medicine in Sun Yat-sen University. I think he has the most say in the efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine. I read an article he wrote in Family Doctor during the SARS period, which was about treating pneumonia with Zhang Zhongjing's Maxingshi decoction. The 6th edition of Internal Medicine holds that "Chinese medicine has a long history in treating liver cirrhosis, and it can really improve symptoms and liver function", which in itself contains these experts' new understanding of Chinese medicine. Those who criticize riffraff and play with the concept of stealing say that TCM simply doesn't know the name of liver cirrhosis, while the ancient TCM diseases of "Qi Excess", "Syndrome" and "Accumulation" are actually similar to liver cirrhosis. Although they have different names, they are actually the same disease, which is ridiculous. For example, rural people named their children "Aunt Zhang" and used a book called "Zhang Furong" when they went to school. This title is like the name of western medicine, and that birth name is like the name of Chinese medicine. The name is different, but it is actually the same person. Modern Chinese medicine uses the names of diseases in western medicine for the following reasons: First, consider the unification of names; Second, considering that the names of diseases in western medicine are one-to-one correspondence, the names of diseases in Chinese medicine are not necessarily the same. For example, dizziness in traditional Chinese medicine includes hypertension and hypotension in western medicine. For the convenience of medical students, we actively approach the names of diseases in western medicine. However, those amateur critics have no idea why. They don't criticize from a professional point of view, but play word games to cover up their ignorance of medicine.