Author: Solos, Ioannis1; Morris, William2; Zhu, Jian-Ping3; Hong, Mei3,
1Foundation for PIHMA Research and Education, Phoenix 85012, Arizona, USA
2AOMA Graduate School of Integrative Medicine, Austin 78745, Texas, USA
3Institute for History of Medicine and Medical Literature, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100700, China
Conference/Journal: Chinese Medicine and Culture
Date published: 2021 Apr-Jun
Other: Volume ID: 4 , Issue ID: 2 , Pages: 86-92 , Special Notes: DOI: 10.4103/CMAC.CMAC_14_21 , Word Count: 221
In 2018, the 11th Edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) defined a diagnostic code list for standard traditional medicine (TM) conditions. The codes improve patient safety by providing more comprehensive and accurate medical records for hospitals in the Western Pacific Region. In these facilities, TM is often a standard of care for those populations. In several mainstream media sources, writers are circumventing evidence-based peer-reviewed medical literature by unduly influencing public opinion and, in this case, against the new ICD-11 codes. The dangers imposed by the transgression of popular writing onto the discipline of peer-reviewed works are present since best practices in medical record-keeping will fail without the inclusion of TM in the ICD-11 codes. Such failures directly affect the health of the patients and policymakers in regions where TM and conventional medicine are combined. This article investigates the boundaries between substantial evidence and popular opinion. In this era where media is used to manipulate evidence, the reader's use of sound judgment and critical thought are thwarted. This article also challenges three controversial themes in pop literature, including the threat to endangered species, increased patient risk, and contaminants in the TM. These themes are made without evidence and are, in fact, of flawed logic. There is no reason to assume that improved medical record-keeping and knowledge of patient cases increase risks.