> Glucosamine has never shown significant health benefits, only minor ones
... This is a bit of a ridiculous argument to make when looking at the data. First of all, they only have 8 categories, only 2 of which have more than 2 studies cited. Second of all, imagine if you only studied the effects of aspirin on addiction. I'm assuming you'd find little to no effect. And if Examine had a list of addiction-related effects you'd also be like "look aspirin is weak, how can it suddenly be strong?". The listed effects on examine all have to do with pain relief which likely has little in common with the mechanism of action for lung cancer
> I find it extremely difficult to trust an all-Chinese research team
This is published in a (European) journal with an H-index of 255.[0] The journal is reputable so are you just asserting you can't trust Chinese scientists to study ingredients used in TCM?
> "TCM" is the invention of Mao
This is very false. Even the article you link only says Mao "heavily invested" in it. You know who else is heavily investing in traditional medicine? The World Health Organization. Which currently has a decades long plan to support and fund and increase the role that complementary medicines play in non-industrialized countries[1][2]
Sorry I'm not really following. Yeah Taiwan's treatment is problematic but that's a larger issue with the United Nations as a whole and not something specific to WHO...
Your concerns are valid. The IPCC reports were also heavily criticized for heavy biases in due to pressure from the US (particularly the US military). However, that doesn't mean that the IPCC reports weren't overall an incredibly useful scientific feat
Yes, like the IPCC, WHO is also susceptible to international political pressures, but I really think if you read through their plan you'd find that it's very well-cited and fairly argued.
... This is a bit of a ridiculous argument to make when looking at the data. First of all, they only have 8 categories, only 2 of which have more than 2 studies cited. Second of all, imagine if you only studied the effects of aspirin on addiction. I'm assuming you'd find little to no effect. And if Examine had a list of addiction-related effects you'd also be like "look aspirin is weak, how can it suddenly be strong?". The listed effects on examine all have to do with pain relief which likely has little in common with the mechanism of action for lung cancer
> I find it extremely difficult to trust an all-Chinese research team
This is published in a (European) journal with an H-index of 255.[0] The journal is reputable so are you just asserting you can't trust Chinese scientists to study ingredients used in TCM?
> "TCM" is the invention of Mao
This is very false. Even the article you link only says Mao "heavily invested" in it. You know who else is heavily investing in traditional medicine? The World Health Organization. Which currently has a decades long plan to support and fund and increase the role that complementary medicines play in non-industrialized countries[1][2]
[0] https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=18458&tip=sid&...
[1] https://www.who.int/health-topics/traditional-complementary-...
[2] https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241506096