Talk:Blood stasis

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rewrite

I've started cleaning up this stub and went to the chinese-language obituary and (Google) translated it to confirm its veracity. (It makes for interesting reading). I've found several journal articles written in support of BS, some of which I am planning to include. These were all written by scientists or clinicians involved with TCM and / or TCM institutions. I've also found some good counter-arguments at Science-Based Medicine with links to PubMed articles. Does anybody have any other ideas? Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a re-write but I'm sure there is more that could be done to this page. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section

this has got to be one of the most poorly written criticism sections i have seen, ever. the phrasing implies some support for critics of the concept but all that could be written is the opinion of one doctor on the concept whose bias can be clearly seen in the title of the source article. the section either ought to include lengthier, more elaborate identification and description of any "incorrect understanding" and thus evidence against said faulty understanding, or simply descriptions of the words and ideas of (more than one) critic of the concept put there without clearly taking one side or the other. given that the section is titled "criticism", it should probably be the latter. 11010010ccs (talk) 09:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And your point is? Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With slightly better epistemology, Blood Stasis can be seen as a less systematic category relating to real factors such as glycocalyx health, thrombosis, and a few other real clinical factors.

The section really doesn't demonstrate very much nuance. 2A00:A041:561:5900:8D0:BEDE:8530:A0C7 (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]