Talk:Meridian (Chinese medicine)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Page name

(TCM) is a pretty bad disambiguator, as it in itself is ambigous. I suggest Meridian (physiology), Meridian (medicine) or Meridian (chinese medicine). -- Chuq 10:18, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Chuq, this seems a good suggestion to me. I'd use Meridian (chinese medicine). How do you change Titles? Geraldstiehler 10:26, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Use the "move" button up the top. just enter the new name, and the page will be moved, with a redirect from the old name automatically created in its place. -- Chuq 11:18, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I really don't like the "TCM" in the title. It is vauge and confusing. Unless anyone objects I will be moving this page to Meridian (Chinese medicine) in a short while. -- FP ?? 08:12, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
I doubt anyone will object. Meridian (TCM) moved to Meridian (Chinese medicine). -- FP ?? 08:23, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
I have restored the original page name, which was apparently changed using a redirect, without discussion. Meridian is the common English term, and this is the English Wikipedia. -- Fyslee / talk 01:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

GFDL history statement for Aligned water theory

This section preserves history for GFDL licensing compliance; please do not remove.

The following text, inserted 07:28, 14 Apr 2005 Dpbsmith, is a copy of text that was solely authored in a rapid series of edits, the last on 23:33, 12 Apr 2005, by 67.127.72.243, in an article entitled "Aligned water theory." This notice is being provided so that history is preserved in the event that Aligned water theory is voted for deletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The aligned water theory of the meridian (TCM) conjectures that meridians are made up of aligned water clusters. Aligned water clusters are where large numbers of water molecules align electrically to form a stable cluster. These have been photographed with an electron microscope by Shui-Yin Lo outside the body. He calls them IE crystals.
These aligned water molecules are thought to flow between the cells. They form a chain that completes a circuit around the body.
When the water molecules fall out of alignment the body may become less healthy.

Scientific predictions and section cleanup

However, later research has confirmed that meridians exist, and many of the claims of meridian diagnosis and treatment are reliable.[1] Despite such research, skeptics of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) often characterize the system as pseudoscientific. Proponents reply that TCM is a prescientific system that continues to have practical relevance.

The above statement is contrary to the citation which identifies NO existence of meridians. I edited the statement to conform to the conclusion of the citation.

The modern search for evidence of the meridian system has become acupuncture's search for the Holy Grail. A number of researchers have claimed to have found evidence for energy meridians, but to date these claims have been unconvincing (v., e.g., Stux & Pomeranz, 1995; Lewith & Lewith, 1983; Chaitow, 1990). For example, Vernejoul claimed to have actually photographed the meridian system (Vernejoul, 1985). Efforts at replication have led most researchers to conclude that Vernejoul photographed the lymphatic system rather than a meridian system (v. Stux & Pomeranz, 1995). While many practitioners of acupuncture assume the existence of meridians, after a significant amount of research, no convincing evidence has been found for their existence. Convincing evidence does exist for local and total body effects of acupuncture interventions, but none has been found for meridian effects (Stux & Pomeranz, 1995).

The above excerpted from Hooke, A Review of Thought Field Therapy, Vol. 3:2; Article 3, The International Electronic Journal of Innovations in the Study of the Traumatization Process and Methods for Reducing or Eliminating Related Human Suffering. --Michael.spangler 13:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


However, the predictions of the modern scientific theory of meridian system have been confirmed or supported by multiple research results in both acupuncture and conventional biomedical sciences.

This is a very bold yet vauge and unreferenced claim (which I removed). It sounds like something unsubstantiated that someone who believes in the system would repeat. If this claim is true, it needs to be much better supported. First of all what are the predictions of the "modern scientific theory of [the] meridian system"? Is there such a thing? What specific research results have upheld these predictions? Some references would definitely needed for such a potentially controversial claim.

I marked the section which lists the meridians of the arms and legs for cleanup for two reasons:

  • These terms should clearly be linked to more detailed articles, but I was unsure whether they should go to Chinese medicine-specific articles, or the scientific articles on particular organs.
  • Could someone explain why, for example, my stomach meridian is in my leg, even though my stomach is clearly located in my middle torso? Are these just named by the organs they are connected to? What are their Chinese names? Is there a physical manifestation of the purported connection which is observed in cadavers?

-- Beland 02:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    • As stated in the corpus, the names refer to functional positions within the body's organ networks. Using the Western anatomical names for the TCM organ functions is regarded by authors like Jeremy Ross as a mistake, but happens by necessity when teaching English students. For instance, the pí (脾) system, while normally translated as "Spleen", probably refers to not only the spleen, but much of the hepatic portal system, and possibly cells and physiological functions of the liver and pancreas, etc. It is not the form of it, but the function that is important. So, to answer your question about why the Stomach channel is in the leg. Well, it's just that it was observed by people that stimulating certain points on your leg affect the performance of the wèi network. Anyway at some point people discovered the channels, and the points became grouped by the channel which they lie on. It's quite probable that if you were to needle points on the stomach channel and the Large Intestine channel (together, these two halves form the Yangming channel), and pass electricity through it - of the level of micro-amps to milli-amps - most of that current may be passing through the organs responsible for the wèi and dà cháng organ networks (ie, the stomach and large intestine).

Mugwumpjism (talk) 07:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

So I am not sure this is the place to discuss exactly, but the reason as to why the stomach meridian is in the leg, is it actually runs from the head (two branches that come together near the chin), then proceeds down the torso all the way to the 2nd toe. It is eastern science or eastern medicine. I attempted to find / link to a source on the internet, but unfortunately I can't find a single source that one would consider reputable .. I expect it will have to be book references in Acupuncture. However, I would comment that Western scientific proof is not the way to go here.

-- User:Clear2Go 20:28 EDT (Sep 15, 2006)

Section Headings

What's the difference between References and Bibliography? If it's nonexistent maybe the section authors ought to merge them. Yasha82.44.114.57 17:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

acupuncture meridians (channels)

I think recent re-discovery, in Korea, of the "Bonghan ducts" should also be discussed in this/related sections.

It would likewise be a good idea, I feel, to have at least a brief biographical entry for Kim, Bong Han (Bonghan). He was the researcher who originally discovered the existance of tubular "ducts" that seem to correspond to classical TCM meridians in their anatomical paths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valdi Yegorov (talk • contribs) 18:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Fractal Channel

Fractal fractal dimension channels and collaterals shape and dissection structure

(non-gap, non-smooth, non-pipeline, rough (crude), cell backfill fractal fractal dimension channels and collaterals) in 1996, Deng Yu et al, Beijing Jiuxianqiao Hospital.

Channels and collaterals' fractal fractal dimension characteristic is the channels and collaterals shape dissection, the organizational structure foundation and the essence. Why is this also channels and collaterals' dissection structure not easily the basic reason which was discovered by the predecessor. It has promulgated channels and collaterals' fractal fractal dimension characteristic, also revealed for the channels and collaterals mass transfer mechanism opened the new path, enabled to have the fractal dimension characteristic, the similar fractal dimension membrane (filtration, ultra filtered with reverse osmosis) or the chromatographic analysis column type “microscopic dynamic `static shuts activity open' the fractal fractal dimension `cell backfill ' the channels and collaterals model” to arise at the historic moment.

7, Oct. 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.147.27.138 (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ununderstandable gibberish. -- Fyslee / talk 01:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Page name restored

Per consensus above (see "Page name" section above) I have restored the original page name, which was apparently changed using a redirect, without any discussion at all here where it counts. Meridian is the common English term, and this is the English Wikipedia. -- Fyslee / talk 01:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Confusing overuse of Chinese characters

There seems to be such an overuse of Chinese characters as to make reading difficult. Especially the lead suffers from this problem. An old discussion about this problem and article exists here, and I propose doing something about the problem. Since some editors have made good faith efforts to do what they thought was an improvement of the article, and I'd hate to see such information get lost and such work get wasted, I suggest making the existing lead a footnote and then use it's exclusively English version as the new lead. If no objections are forthcoming soon, I'll make an attempt and see if it floats. -- Fyslee / talk 06:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Per this guideline I think we can safely remove all the Chinese characters except for Chinese name of the title itself. I completely agree that it's currently impossible to read, — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


Picture missing!?!

Where's one or more pictures illustrating the position of meridians? So shockingly absent, makes me think it's still a stub level article. 69.196.191.134 (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Chinese meridians
Chinese meridians
Nervous system
Nervous system
As clear, the chinese meridians follows more or less the nervous system
Removed by Bullrangifer, since there seam to be "issues" with the image, not sure which ones though, could probably be fixed when mistakes are explained. 91.182.136.18 (talk) 10:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I see my name was mentioned. Here is the diff and the edit summary:
I have no objection to an illustration, but certainly not the text, so I have restored the meridian image and used a neutral description. The deleted image was an OR juxtaposition, but is a documented and provably false claim made all the time by advocates of TCM who don't know anatomy. The illustration of meridians, without the comparison to the real nerve system, is okay. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Quote Addition

I've never done this before and am not familiar with how to make edits to Wikipedia pages, but I thought this quote might be rather fitting and helpful if someone else could properly add it to the article or reference it:

In a typical acupuncture study, researchers would inject a tracer or radio-isotope into an energy point along a specific meridian system or channel in a subjects body as directed by a skilled acupuncturist. The purpose was to see if the tracer would move and if it did, would it move along the meridians or channels as they appear on a classic meridian chart. Time and time again, they found the tracer would immediately flow along that same, specific, meridian channel where the tracer had been injected.

The researchers also found if they injected the tracer even slightly outside of a specific energy point, all the tracer did was pool in that spot. It went nowhere. These results clearly demonstrated the existence of a system of otherwise invisible meridians or channels within the human body, just as Eastern scholars had been teaching for many millenia. Here was proof of a system that was previously unrecognized and unknown to modern medicine. I found that to be truly astounding.

Furthermore, these studies were not conducted just in China and Japan but also in Europe and even here in the United States including the highly regarded Menninger Foundation. The studies were significant enough that insurance companies began covering acupuncture treatments and most do today.(pp.268-9)

Chunyi Lin and Gary Rebstock (2003) Born a Healer. Spring Forest Publishing. ISBN 0-9740944-1-2

Soulstrummer (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)soulstrummer

That's an interesting claim from a practitioner, but we should use the references themselves. If this has really happened as claimed, it should be easy to find and use the references to the research itself. Since this is a medical subject, we can't depend on testimonials, but need better sources per the guidelines at WP:MEDRS. Brangifer (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
BTW, if this were even true, Felix Mann would be very interested! Brangifer (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

A web search for "meridian radioisotope" retrieves some references to experiments conducted by a "Pierre de Vernejoul" at the University of Paris: P. de Vernejoul et al., "Etude Des Meridiens D'Acupuncture par les Traceurs Radioactifs", published in 1985 in "Bulletin de l'Académie Nationale de Médecine", whatever that means. It seems he forgot to publish his article on le web, so I can't read it. However, I could download an English-language article, Kovacs et al, "Experimental Study on Radioactive Pathways of Hypodermically Injected Technetium-99m", 1992, which repeats the experiment in beagles in Barthelona. It appeared in a journal calling itself the "Journal of Nuclear Medicine", published by some group called the "Society of Nuclear Medicine". In any case I agree with Brangifer that we need to have some standards for reliable sources. A journal which publishes research about acupuncture could hardly be considered reputable enough to cite on Wikipedia. We don't want to mislead people away from proven treatments by letting them think that meridians are real! By the way, please don't give attention to Felix Mann, he says disreputable things like "It is unfortunately the case that many doctors, even when faced with one or several patients who have been cured by acupuncture where their own efforts have been fruitless, refuse to believe the evidence." (Mann, "Acupuncture", 1971, p. 1) What evidence? If acupuncture were really effective, then someone would have gotten a Nobel prize for it years ago. 80.189.139.93 (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I suggest that Eight Extraordinary Channels should be merged into Meridian (Chinese medicine) for the following reasons (in no particular order):

  1. The meridians article mentions and lists the twelve regular meridians, but then just mentions and links to the eight extraordinary channels. I believe the list of the eight channels would fit well in the meridians article.
  2. There is not a separate article for the twelve regular meridians.
  3. The EEC article is very short, consisting of a brief intro including the same disclaimer this article contains, a short paragraph about the EEC, and then a list of the meridians themselves.
  4. The meridians article is not overly long, and as such this addition would not have any negative impact on the length of this article.
  5. The subject of meridians in general should also refer to the EEC in detail and not just the twelve regular meridians. After all, they are all meridians, and as such they all fall under the topic of the meridian article.
  6. Most of what I see as missing from the EEC article (including a criticism section and some more information about meridians in general) would be covered by what already exists in the meridian article.

I don't think this should be a problematic move, but I wanted to list in out before doing it just to be sure. Thanks. --Transity (talk • contribs) 17:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Since there were no dissenting opinions, I have completed the merge. I did not alter text from either article in the process of the merge. I took a piece of the text from the EEC article, and put it into the Meridians article. I did not copy over the text that seemed to already exist (in a similar form) in the Meridians article. I also added subheaders here to accommodate the new version of the text, and I moved one section as the flow seemed to work better. Everything else should be intact (if not, please let me know). Thanks. --Transity (talk • contribs) 14:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

A red link in the see also section is based on the following....

--222.64.222.219 (talk) 08:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The "See also" section is reserved for articles that are already created. Such a link might qualify as an external link, but not really. It should be used as a reference for material that is included in the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Bonghan System

I realize that my recent addition of a link to Bonghan System is likely to be controversial but this new research has plenty of published science behind it and has been confirmed in different labs in a number of countries. With these new discoveries a statement which claims that there is no anatomical evidence of meridians misrepresents a truth that has become more controverial and less absolute. DavidWis (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Translation problem

I removed the following from the end of the lead as it's not written properly, and since I don't read Chinese I can't fix it:

  • The translation "meridian" is claimed to be improper for inaccuracy.[2][3]

Brangifer (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Acupuncture meridians demythified. Contribution of radiotracer methodology". 1988. Retrieved 2007-05-07. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  2. ^ ""经络"成了"子午线" 中医术语翻译惹争论". 2008-08-15. Retrieved 2009-04-28. (in Chinese)
  3. ^ 朱建平. "中医术语规范化与中医现代化国际化". Retrieved 2009-04-28. (in Chinese)

"Role in dreams"

This last section solely deals with the hypothesis of a certain Dr. Tsai from Taiwan. This hypothesis is not based on traditional knowledge and it definetely is not rooted in science. "The repair nerves in the brain (and spine?) are grouped into many serpentine chains which are called "meridians" (Dzingluo or Zingluo經絡) by the Chinese school of medicine" - a statement like this is bound to draw fire both from traditionalists and scientists alike (plus, Dr. Tsai doesn't have any evidence to back up his little theory). I will therefore remove this section. Mallexikon (talk) 06:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Table from Acupuncture article

I am looking for RS for anything I might have deleted from the acupuncture article as NRS. One thing was this table, part of which is in this article. Someone might want to check this for RS and integrate it into the existing table. PPdd (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"Proof" of existence of Meridians?

A number of websites and books (such as books on the Tao) claim that the existence of meridians has been demonstrated by Japanese and German researchers. They cite: Nakatani Y: Skin electric resistance and ryodoraku. J Autonomic Nerve 6:52, 1956. Voll R: Twenty years of electroacupuncture diagnosis in Germany: a progressive report. Am J Acupunct 3:7-17, 1975. In particular, they cite a paper by Sir Thomas Lewis, as having found an "unknown nervous system" published in the British Medical Journal in February, 1937 and entitled The NOCIFENSOR SYSTEM OF NERVES AND ITS REACTIONS. It seems me that a device like the German NMR-mouse could detect these elusive meridians once and for all. What is the hang-up with today's means? Isn't there a way of conclusively determining once and for all whether or not meridians exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyMath (talk • contribs) 00:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience" should be added as a category for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.237.95.119 (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The article could use a section summarizing pro-meridian medical/scientific research. There are a number of Chinese and Korean studies that purportedly find proof of the physical meridians' existence. E.g. this piece: New CT Scans Reveal Acupuncture Points ... whether or not it's considered a credible source, the article provides a number of references to other existing studies to track down. Baba Bom (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Were we to use that source directly, it would be prudent to include the following: "An article published on healthcmi.com, A commercial site offering online tuition courses in acupuncture, recently stated that... " etc. And also that the research in question was conducted on a rabbit - as evidenced by the study which forms the basis for their article here "http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0368204813002405". If we were to use the original scientific paper as a source, Someone who understands the subject matter in depth and has access through the paywall might be well placed to comment on how this study was received and further referenced by the scientific community at large. A cursory view of the authors reveals that the study was probably carried out at the Synchotron Radiation Lab in Fudan University in Shanghai. This university is one of Shanghai's preeminent medical teaching institutions as well as being one of the most well-known hospitals in China. They have facilities dedicated to TCM research.Edaham (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Not an OK source per WP:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
It's great how we so quickly managed to arrive at that conclusion.Edaham (talk) 13:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

3 suggestions for improvement of this article

1)Why is the article biased against Chinese medicine? It seems that an article discussing TCM and meridian theory would be more open to exploring the possibility of its existence, or at least acknowledging the debate over its usage. Less anti-meridian rhetoric could greatly improve the neutrality of the article and the validity of its information. 2)Why are over half of the sources from the 1990s or earlier? Many of the sources, especially those condemning meridian theory, are over 20 years old. Since that time, more research has been done by the NIH and NSF, as well as internationally, that have influence the use and acceptance of meridian theory and TCM in Western cultures. References to such published, peer-review studies would provide important input into the scientific research of meridians. 3)Why is the history of meridians underdeveloped? A valuable improvement to this article would be the addition of the history of meridian development in TCM. More detailed explanations as to why the system developed, why people continue to use is, how it was started, and how it spread could all provide deeper insight into the meridian theory.Fimm23HM (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

As regards the "theory" (it's not a formal theory, it's a belief) of meridians, see WP:NPOV and particularly WP:PSCI: Wikipedia is a reality-based project and doesn't indulge woo, of which there is a lot. Any biomedical information needs to be sourced to WP:MEDRS. If there are good sources on history then yes, they could be useful to expand the article. Alexbrn (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

About Meridian Science

It is not true that scientists have not found anatomical structures which accord to meridians, some scientists are doing research on what they are calling the Primo Vascular System. This started with the research carried out by North Korean scientist Kim Bong-Han who discovered it.

https://www.lumennatura.com/2016/04/23/primo-vascular-system-the-anatomy-of-meridians/

Probrooks (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
More specifically, not a professionally-published mainstream medical source. We generally don't accept blogs, and we especially don't accept medical claims from blogs by people who are not doctors. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I only provided this as an information source so editors could realise there actually was extent research on the anatomical structures of meridian. Probrooks (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
North Korea? They're known for making up stuff just to make their country sound better. Maybe you should try operating from the perspective "what does mainstream medical science say on this topic?" instead of "what sources can try to make this look legitimate?" Ian.thomson (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Mainstream medical science may not have caught up to the research of people like Professor Vitaly Vodyanoy, as he states.
http://ocm.auburn.edu/newsroom/news_articles/2016/12/auburn-scientist-discovers-microstructure-of-primo-vascular-system.htm
There are certainly many other scientists working these in the field of the Primo Vascular System. See these papers.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043466612005984
http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/scd.2014.0142
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014480012001268
To say, "Meridians are not real anatomical structures: scientists have found no evidence that supports their existence." is really unecessary and incorrect. Some scientists believe they have found these anatomical structures.
These definite and firm wordings I think are unecessary and just make wikipedia look foolish in the eyes of intelligent thinking people. Are we trying to provide accurate and unbiased information to people or are we trying to shove a particular world view in their face?
Probrooks (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Again, you are operating out of a confirmation bias. You are also confusing "may" with "absolutely have." Wikipedia sticks to mainstream sources, ideally a few weeks behind the curve. Insulting the site and implying that anyone who disagrees with you aren't "intelligent thinking people" doesn't help your case at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Probrooks: Regarding the first two citations you bring up, "possible" isn't "confirmed." The second citation doesn't even really say "this is it," but "some people suggested that as a third system, and we've found a third system." I'm not seeing what you were trying to get at with the third source, except that it was later cited by acupuncturists. That is non sequitur, not scientific evidence of meridians. I'm failing to find even that tenuous connection for the fourth source, except in "recommended articles" section that seems to be influenced by having visited the previous articles. And none of those sources mention magical life energy that connect your organs to a specific time of day. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


I'm just saying some Wikipedia articles cannot be taken seriously when it is hijacked by people with an ideological agenda who are trying to tell people what to think and their world view is the truth i.e. meridians do not exist. This is a patently absurd line, it is rude, it is disrespectful in a juvenile way and it is far too certain. All I'm saying here is that its probably better to let this one go when there is the obvious and blatent pushing of a point of view.
In this case we need to look at, and consider that perhaps mainstream science has not had the ability or focus to detect meridians. In the future they may be detected. Some scientists are saying they have already detected them. It would be extremely foolish to determine reality here for people, especially when a lot of people just want to learn something about meridians as they are understand in TCM.
Wording could be "Mainstream medical science has yet to detect meridians. Some scientists believe the Primo Vascular System, discovered in the 1960's by North Korean scientist Kim Bong-Han may in fact be the meridian system."
Probrooks (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
"I'm just saying some Wikipedia articles cannot be taken seriously when it is hijacked by people with an ideological agenda" -- that's rich coming from you.
"who are trying to tell people what to think and their world view is the truth i.e. meridians do not exist" -- Because it would be a lie to tell people that science has found evidence of invisible channels of magical energy that tie parts of your body to specific times of day and five of the planets in the solar system -- that is what meridians are according to TCM. Also, why is it OK for you to tell people what to believe? Especially when it's not based on science.
You've provided no sources that suggest that any real scientists who also happen to understand what meridians are according to TCM thinks that the Primo Vascular system has anything to do with this. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Those are scattered primary sources about a putative third circulatory system, the existence of which is not accepted knowledge at this time. Not a single one of those refs is about qi or the "channels" of qi that meridians are described as being, nor showing actually showing how needling any one of the many acupoints that TCM describes could do the many things that are ascribed to acu. Please stop wasting our time. Jytdog (talk) 04:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
My basic point is, there are scientits working on this. Yes, they are real scientists who live in Korea! What is science but trying to understand the world through methodology that can be repeated. I'm providing this information for those who are still interested in exploring and understanding the world, not for those who have "already made their mind up".
http://www.jams-kpi.com/article/S2005-2901(13)00208-2/fulltext
All I'm saying is that it pre-emptive to conclude that acupuncture meridians do not exist. Science in its essence explores, it understands. Science cannot tell us that "god does not exist" or "chi does not exist". (Many scientists actually measure chi for one thing.) Also, a lot of people experience god or experience chi or acupuncture meridians. This is a whole practise based upon their existence, therefore to be respectful to the existence of that practise, and the beliefs of people and culture, it would be wise to be diplomatic in wording and not invoke western cultural imperialism which deems itself to be the arbiter of truth. This is just alienating as I keep saying. All this is sympomatic of a lack of respect in my opinion, arrogance which has its roots in ignorance.
Probrooks (talk) 11:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Scientists in a country that claims to have cured AIDS with Ginsing because their dictator won't let them work unless they say stuff that makes their country sound awesome -- are not real scientists.
Science can tell us that there is absolutely no evidence of qi, qi is something that exists within the scientifically testable physical world. The comparison with God does not work because any being that would be called "God" would have created science and so is not contained within that system. The question of God is one for the philosophers.
Clinical trials have not shown acupuncture to be more effective if you operate on the meridian model or if you just poke anywhere that isn't going to cause serious injury. In other words, the placebo effect granted by acupuncture is entirely unrelated to any superstition of meridians or qi.
As for the culture argument, "Traditional" "Chinese" "Medicine" was assembled under orders from Mao Zedong (who refused to use it, sticking to science based medicine) for political purposes from astrology-based works that were ultimately imported from the middle east only several hundred years ago. It isn't really part of their culture, it is a two-generation old government lie to save face while trying to trick western doctors to come into the country. Even if it was a part of their culture, if someone's culture said that the earth was flat, should science respect that? If someone's culture said that drinking mercury is a cure for the common cold, should science respect that? If someone's culture claimed that a woman with a third nipple is a witch and needs to be burned at the stake, should science respect that? If someone's culture says that gay people are possessed by demons and need to be starved until they quit being gay, should science respect that? "It's part of their culture" is something that everyone should keep in mind when comparing opinion-derived practices and customs between two cultures, but that does not hold up when comparing a scientifically testable claim (even if specific to a culture) to objective science.
I'm living in China now, been here almost two years. When I first came here, I grabbed several books on Chinese medicine (ones that try to be as scientific as possible) and even as a layperson I can see the politically-induced flaws in methodology, execution, and study. If there's ignorance on the subject here, it's not me.
Also, I'm taking this to WP:ANI. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Many TCM practitioners consider that MAO really did a number on TCM, and made it expedient to communist style thinking, as you say, but that doesn't mean that TCM practioners are practising communistic style TCM. Much tradtional knowledge remained intact, say in Taiwan.
Regarding clinical trials. This is my view on acupuncture. Most acupuncturists are not very good at it. I also think it is not relevent for too many health conditions. But it is one of those things that becomes more popular for a good reason. I think it would wishful thinking naive to think its popularity is simply due to the placebo effect.
And here you go, quoting Steven Novella, as if he was a unbiased and neutral source on these matters. The meridian system was first mapped at the time of the yellow emporer. The chinese have a very sophisticated system of medicine. Yeah, sure, some of it seems supersticious to people in the west, but people all over the world are using these herbs and techniques these days.
Check out the Encyclopedia Britanica entry on TCM, do you think they would ever say anything as crude as "Meridians are not real", no, its an information resource, and its a fine article if you ask me.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/traditional-Chinese-medicine
Maybe you should consider reading up about Huangdi and his use of acunpuncture needles in 2697 BC.
Probrooks (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
If you actually looked at both the links I provided (a site run by real doctors, by the way), you'd know what was wrong with your counter-arguments. The words used in the Yellow Emperor's Canon did not describe a practice that we'd now recognize as acupuncture, but closer to bloodletting. It was only in the 1930s that it was brought back after the meridian system was shifted by a single doctor. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
oooohhh, real doctors! Yes, I am very familar with this web site, and I have little time for skeptic "go to gospel" sites like Science Based Medicine, its like one sided junk food, which provides a biased and negationist view which cannot be considered to be at all objective. They have an agenda to push, and that is that "science" is the way and the truth, and acupuncture is considered primitive supersticious nonsense, which is actually a straight out an ignorant point of view. It is like I don't have time for right wing fascist propaganda: its one sided extremism. I'm not going to go into countering that site here, but there are many resources and links like Britannica I mentioned above, which say differently, and this one for example.
http://www.acos.org/articles/ancient-chinese-acupuncture/
Which communicate and back up that acupuncture has a long history in china and its use shows up in all stages of history. The meridian system was exported to both Korea and Japan for example, and here you can find information about the history of acupuncture in Japan which I think you will find quite extensive and thorough.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2887322/
Also, you find pictures of acupuncture needles here which negates your view you gleaned from a skeptic web site that the chinese were not capable of producing needles, actually they used gold and silver and many needles have been found. This site also explains their use and quotes from ancient texts which makes it clear the nine needles were NOT used for just bloodletting!
http://meridians.japaneseacupuncture.info/the-evolution-of-acupuncture-needles-and-tools/
So what you are saying about the ancient texts being only about bloodletting is to put it frankly: completely bullshit. Bloodletting is a part of what they did, but if you actually look at the text, "Huang Di Nei Jing Ling Shu: The Ancient Classic on Needle Therapy" (which you can read in its entirity on google books), you can see they are using the word Qi, they are talking about specific meridians and they are needling to unblock the qi. I looked through it and most of it was basically what modern acupuncturists do today. Maybe it is time for you to delve into chinese culture more seriously, I've read some of these ancient texts and some of them are very poetic and scientific, while others come off as supersticious and ridiculous.
I know the reason you wanted me T-banned, because your arguments and thinking are so limited and doesn't stand up to any examination whatsoever. All you have is references to skeptic propaganda web sites which are so far removed from the actual truth it is ridiculous. You don't even question the accuracy of what the skeptic web sites and just take everything they say on face value: some skeptic you are!
Probrooks (talk) 05:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm trying to get you t-banned because your willful ignorance is nothing but trouble for the site -- at best a waste of everyone's time and bandwidth. Your posts are less than useless. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@Probrooks: - This TBAN isn't out of punishment, but rather for preservation of articles. You call them 'skeptic websites', but they are actually extremely reliable sources. I see no example of a reliable source supporting what you have to say about 'meridians' and acupuncture' and all this nonsense. If you can give an example of a 'skeptic website' that we 'blindly follow', as well as a reliable source that supports what you have to say, it would greatly help your case of including such information. Until that point, we can only use reliable sources that modern science and technology find to be accurate, fair and universally acceptable, and fringe theories like 'meridians' and 'acupuncture' go out the window. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not trying to "destroy" articles as you claim, only make them more fair and reasonable. I've just proved that this Gorski article on Science Based Medicine is completely incorrect on a few counts, and you are telling me this is a reliable web site? And yes, Science Based Medicine is web site that skeptics blindly follow. Acupuncture and meridians are not fringe theories, but traditions harking back thousands of years ago. Your wording and your point of view, just signifies western cultural imperialism and lack of respect for the traditions and practises of other cultures.
How many people have even had acupuncture? How many have actually talked to an acupuncturist? How many people have read acupuncture books? You may say I'm an advocate, I'm only saying acupuncture shouldn't be negated and just communicated about on its own terms. Obviously, there is an agenda being pushed here, and that is to negate acupuncture.
Ian.thomson The only willful ignorance here is yours, this Science Based Medicine is wrong on a few counts. What I am saying is simply not refutable with many original sources that say the same thing, and all you have is one biased article.
Probrooks (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
+ JAMS (Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies) is a Fake Medical Journal! -Aṭlas (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • going no where and editor is about to be TBANed. archiving this as clutter. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

"traditional Chinese meridian theory" vs. "meridian theory"

[1]

@Jytdog: Could you explain this revert?

I honestly can't make head or tail of it, as your edit summary appears to have no relation to the content of your edit. I know that a meridian is a meridian; science is science, but what does that have to do with mine being honestly a bad edit?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Wait ... is the problem that "theory" when not prefaced by "traditional" and "Chinese" makes it look "scientific"? I don't buy that, but I'm grasping at straws here. If it's that big a concern, how about Scientific view of meridian belief or Scientific view of meridian-based alternative medicine? I think both of these are inferior to my earlier wording, but would be amenable to them over the current wording. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

sorry i read the diff backward. your change was very good. meridians are meridians. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

"Meridians do not exist"

At the current discussion of this article on the fringe theories noticeboard, I've proposed replacing "Meridians do not exist", in the body of the article (not the lede, which has already been toned down a notch) with "Meridians exist only as a concept; there is no known anatomic or physiologic equivalent". This is a statement of fact, backed by cited sources, and is more encyclopedic and (IMHO) less condescending than flat "denial" language. Any objections? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Drop "known" and you might be getting somewhere. And what do you mean by "equivalent"? This looks like verbosity to obfuscate the plain meaning. Alexbrn (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I added "known" in deference to those editors who have argued that the possibility exists that some sort of Western counterpart will be discovered someday; but I'm fine with removing it. Do I really need to define "equivalent"? It's not "verbosity", it's more precise, less dogmatic. We physicians tend to talk that way, yes -- but I'm proposing this in the interest of civility and compromise. With all due respect to Russell's teapot, it's a bit arrogant to dismiss out of hand concepts widely popular in other cultures, isn't it? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 21:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm astonished. You think we should avoid stating the truth because a lots of people (used to) believe something otherwise? You think we should equivocate about other altmed topics too? Homeopathy? Alexbrn (talk) 07:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, that's a straw man and a half. I'm astonished that you are so certain of The Truth -- though actually I'm not, because I used to feel that sort of certainty in my younger days. Look, nobody is arguing that there is any data to suggest that meridians physically exist (at least I'm not) -- I'm just reflecting my medical training; medical texts frown on absolute statements like, "X does not exist", as opposed to, "there is no evidence that X exists". It's less arrogant. Exactly what portion of "Meridians exist only as a concept; there is no known anatomic or physiologic equivalent" constitutes "avoiding stating the truth"? What part is untrue? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
It's not a straw man, it's on point. If you only allow Wikipedia to assert things which are formally provably true, the door is open to insinuate things about a whole raft of fringe stuff from aliens to conspiracies to quackery (so, can we just say the Holocaust happened, or is that arrogant?). Fortunately WP:ASSERT exists so we don't do that, we only step back from assertion when there is "serious dispute" and over the existence of meridians, there is none. The current assertion in text is fine: "Meridians exist only as a concept" since it is absolute and so neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Aha, Godwin's Law strikes again -- discussion over. I would have been quite happy with "Meridians exist only as a concept" -- if that were the "current assertion" -- which it is not. Whatever. I think we're done here. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 23:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
And since you (and others) find "Meridians exist only as a concept" acceptable, I will make that change. (I can't even bring myself to comment on the reductio ad absurdum Holocaust comparison.) DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 17:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
...and of course, it was reverted immediately -- by someone who said he was "fine with the suggested language". I need a new hobby, I guess. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I suppose it depends whether or not we would be okay with "Unicorns exist only as a concept; scientists have found no evidence that supports their physical existence." It's unnecessary to specify that something exists as a concept - it's implicit in "unicorns do not exist" that there is a concept of unicorns. --tronvillain (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Yet another reductio ad absurdum argument, as if anyone has ever actually argued that unicorns are real. But fear not, I know when to walk away; we are all in basic agreement on everything except terminology. And attitude. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Plenty of people throughout history have asserted the reality of unicorns. In any case, it's simply an examination of the phrasing using another concept which has no good evidence.--tronvillain (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
On second thought, I'm not fine with removing "known" -- I'm not prepared to imply that our body of knowledge of anatomy and physiology is complete, that there's nothing left to discover. People were saying stuff like that in 500CE, which is why we had a Middle Ages. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 22:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
In other words "You can't prove that there are none, only that we haven't found one yet" to quote from WP:FLAT. Meridians do not exist, and Wikipedia says so. We don't defer to ignorance. Alexbrn (talk) 07:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Advocates will always want more. Editors need to write for readers, and there may well be young or naive readers who wonder whether the meridian concept has any veracity. Such readers should be told plainly that meridians explain nothing, and are incompatible with knowledge that does explain things, and there is no reason to think meridians exists. Stripped of the gobbledygook, meridians don't exist. Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • In any case, the current wording is fine. Surely nobody is objecting to that!? Alexbrn (talk) 07:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
May I sugggest, "Mainstream modern science has yet to discover any evidence to support the existence of meridians." This is much more respectful, it puts the onus on science to discovere meridians or not. Claiming present day scientific knowledge is the final truth on the mattter is illogical captain. Probrooks (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
No, because it's utterly WP:PROFRINGE. Alexbrn (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
No, it is not, this wording is the actual truth without skeptical baggage. It is actually the neutral option. Anything else is aiming to negate or undermine acupuncture as a practise, and it is clear many editors here desire to editorialise their personal views on acupuncture. Probrooks (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
It's pretty clear from WP:ANI that you will be topic banned soon, so there's not much point in you continuing to blather. The onus is on those who claim that something exists, especially when science has found an absence of that thing. And if claiming that present day scientific knowledge is the truth as far as we know is illogical, then it's patently stupid to pretend that pre-scientific magic reinterpreted in the 1930s and codified for purely political purposes is an equally valid option. You need to quit editorializing your ignorance of science. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • would be fine with "Meridians exist only as a concept; there is no known anatomic or physiologic equivalent" Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I would personally prefer this, for what it's worth (probably not a lot). -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • based on what the rest of the article says and a quick read through some of the sources, a reasonable summary regarding their existence might be. "Despite a wealth of ongoing research into the existence of meridians, no convincing scientific evidence has been put forward for their existence. Major proponents of their existence have also not come to any consensus as to how they might work or be tested in a scientific context" those two points seem pretty clear from the material presented: 1) no proof 2) no consensus among practitioners. Edaham (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Existential conclusions and empirical premises

@Kashmiri: The idea of meridians claims that the manipulation of specific points on the body will have physiological effects -- those are empirical premises, not existential claims. Meridians are not a philosophical concept, they are a scientifically testable hypothesis. The hypothesis has been tested, repeatedly, and the result was null.

I could begin to grant that your argument would apply to something like Chakras when authors discuss chakras as facets of the soul or even the mind (as some do) instead of as physical structures with physical effects (as some do as well). That's not the case with meridians, though, it's always in the context of physical health (not spiritual development). I'm totally for theology heading toward Fideism and encouraging the view of Non-overlapping magisteria. However, meridians aren't actually a religious concept: they were proto-medicine that was completely secularized by the Chinese government and remains pseudoscience. Even where some religions adopt the idea of meridians, meridians still fall under testable premises and (to be extremely generous) there is a significant disconnect between the hypothesis and reality. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

TBarraganTX's attempted diluting of the article

@TBarraganTX: Discuss matters here before attempting to restore the material again.

Wikipedia does not create artificial balance between two opposing views, it summarizes professionally-published mainstream academic sources, particularly medical sources. Metastudies and tertiary sources have found no evidence for the existence of meridians. This does not mean "they exist but haven't been found," this means "they have found an absence of meridians."

It is not some scientists who "claim" meridians do not exist, it is what any legitimate scientist who has researched the matter will tell you.

This article you cited is not funded by the NIH, it is simply hosted on their website. It was funded by Shenzhen University. Chinese universities are funded by the Chinese government, and the Chinese government has been pushing the study of TCM not because they believe in it (Mao, whose idea this was, sure didn't) but to entice foreign doctors to come into China to teach science-based medicine while saving face. The article was published by the Hindawi Publishing Corporation, which has been noted for low-quality output. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Inaccuracy of article

The sources and information presented in this article about the scientific value of the meridian system are well outdated. All new research opposes what is written here. The meridian system has been proven to have some scientific value, though the specifics are beyond my knowledge. This article also does not speak of the history of the meridian system, or what it has been and continues to be used for. Therefore this article does not contain enough accurate information to be considered credible now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daredevildovahkiin (talk • contribs) 15:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Sources? Alexbrn (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@Daredevildovahkiin: A lack of historical information is a common complaint on the talk pages of articles about ancient (and discredited) practices or notions which are still employed or entertained by quacks and misguided healthcare providers in modern times as part of a repertoire of alternative medicine. In many cases I agree that more historical information should be provided, for the article to be both interesting to the reader and also make the encyclopedia fuller in its descriptions of historical healing methods rather than just (but quite rightly) testifying to their invalidity in modern medical practices. If you can find some sources in English or Chinese I'd help translate and write a more comprehensive history section. It has to be said that online sources on CAM and related fields are mostly going to provide either a) promotional and therefore non-MEDRS information or b) genuine medical sites which discredit the subject and the field, so it's probably going to take some digging in a library. Edaham (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey guys,is it remotely possible that your quack-radar is just a little bit over-active? I'm all for reasonable and even thorough skepticism, because there certainly is a need for it. But attacking people reactively without doing due diligence doesn't help the process.
You want sources? Here are a few.
Li, J., Wang, Q., Liang, H., Dong, H., Li, Y., Ng, E. H. Y., & Wu, X. (2012). Biophysical characteristics of meridians and acupoints: a systematic review. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2012. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ecam/2012/793841/
X. H. Yan, X. Y. Zhang, C. L. Liu et al., “Do acupuncture points exist?” Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 54, no. 9, pp. N143–N150, 2009. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-9155/54/9/N01/meta;jsessionid=C1A6963C04138BA9F493A20889F061B0.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org
Johng, H. M., Cho, J. H., Shin, H. S., Sah, K. S., Koo, T. H., Choi, S. Y., ... & Park, M. S. (2002). Frequency dependence of impedances at the acupuncture point Quze (PC3). IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, 21(2), 33-36. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1000183/?reload=true
S. X. Ma, X. Y. Li, B. T. Smith, and N. T. Jou, “Changes in nitric oxide, cGMP, and nitrotyrosine concentrations over skin along the meridians in obese subjects,” Obesity, vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 1560–1567, 2011.
N. T. Jou and S. X. Ma, “Responses of nitric oxide—cGMP release in acupuncture point to electroacupuncture in human skin in vivo using dermal microdialysis,” Microcirculation, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 434–443, 2009.
M. S. Lee, S. Y. Jeong, Y. H. Lee, D. M. Jeong, Y. G. Eo, and S. B. Ko, “Differences in electrical conduction properties between meridians and non-meridians,” American Journal of Chinese Medicine, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 723–728, 2005.
S. J. Egot-Lemaire and M. C. Ziskin, “Dielectric properties of human skin at an acupuncture point in the 50—75 GHz frequency range, a pilot study,” Bioelectromagnetics, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 568–569, 2003
Ahn, A. C., Colbert, A. P., Anderson, B. J., Martinsen, Ø. G., Hammerschlag, R., Cina, S., ... & Langevin, H. M. (2008). Electrical properties of acupuncture points and meridians: a systematic review. Bioelectromagnetics, 29(4), 245-256. (Lead author is from Harvard. Calls for better studies but says that "preliminary evidence is encouraging" (p. 254))
Pigkeeper (talk) 10:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think any of those sources are compliant with WP:MEDRS. -Roxy the dog. bark 10:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I am amazed that someone pipes in within 12 minutes and just says, "oh, these don't count at all." That is really a low level of critical engagement, and is genuinely disappointing. Let's see. I have cited several articles in reputable peer-reviewed journals. I have cited two review articles. One of those review articles is in a reputable conventional biomedical journal. That article says, "preliminary evidence is encouraging" that something measurable and detectable is there. Not only that, but it says that the existing evidence gives clues about the physiologic nature of meridians. Again, this is a team led by a member of the Harvard Medical School. Pigkeeper (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I am amazing I know, but they don't count. Have you read WP:MEDRS yet? Roxy the dog. bark 11:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello? I just read it and I referred to it in my response to you. Pigkeeper (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Really? Which bit? Incidentally, the following phrase from one of the reviews, "preliminary evidence is encouraging", in english means, "Please don't cut off my funding" Roxy the dog. bark 12:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC) Roxy the dog. bark 12:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meridian (Chinese medicine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meridian_(Chinese_medicine)/Archive_1&oldid=1146418377"