That's an extremely silly objection when (a) artemisinin is effective as a standalone drug if you administer it frequently enough, (b) the discovery of artemisinin and its derivatives in malaria treatment was quite literally inspired by TCM, and (c) most natural products are modified prior to use in pharmaceutical industry, and artemisinin is particularly lightly modified. (Just given a simple ester in artesunate's case.)
Why should we take TCM any more seriously than traditional western? Do we still boil bark for a headache? Of course not, especially when it comes with so many tannins you get a stomach ache instead?
When you have thousands of years of people writing down their folk cures, sooner or later somebody will be right.
>Why should we take TCM any more seriously than traditional western?
Wasn't the entire idea behind evidence-based medicine to start putting traditional western treatments to the test and check if they actually work? I think we do take traditional western methods quite seriously, and we should do the same with TCM.
With regard to your bark example, right here in the thread someone points out: "E.g. willow bark was used to treat pain for thousands of years, which led to the discovery of aspirin."
I'm not sure if you intentionally missed my points (because the relation between willow tree bark and aspirin is common knowledge in my experience), or there's just a gap I don't know how to bridge...
But no, at a normal conversational level- most the people around me (American midwest) would wait for the rest of the joke if I said I was going to the apothecary to get something for my headache.
