Talk:Traditional Korean medicine

message: Why is this article have "The neutrality of this article is disputed." headline?
Which part of the article is disputed? --Korsentry 01:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Traditional Korean medicine, like other traditional Oriental medicines, are disputed because their methods are often based on superstition and therefore often can't stand up to modern scientific standards. The very idea of blood letting hasn't existed in legitimate medicine for centuries, and yet a form of it is still practiced in Korea. --Bentonia School (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed article? 

message: Hopefully this will help someone, as I am quite hopeless at reading Korean. But the abstracts look promising.
Lee Kyung-Lock "The Provincial Medical System during the Early Days of Koryo Dynasty" Korean J Med Hist. 16(2): 2007. pp. 111-131 http://medhist.kams.or.kr/abstract.php?body=2007111a
 Hwang Im Kyung and Hwang Sang Ik " A Study of Treatise on Medicine by King Sejo" Korean J Med Hist. 12(2): 2003 pp.97-109 http://medhist.kams.or.kr/abstract.php?body=200397a
Lee Kyung-Lock and Shin Dong Hwan "The Medical System and its characteristics during the Koryo Dynasty period" Korean J  Med Hist 10(2):2001 pp. 153-180
http://medhist.kams.or.kr/abstract.php?body=2001153a
Kee Chang Duk "The History of Korean Traditional Medicine" Korean J Med Hist 8(1):1999 pp. 1-14
http://medhist.kams.or.kr/abstract.php?body=19991a
Shin Soon Shik "A Study on the Korean Traditional Medical Literatures Before Koryo Dynasty"  Korean J Med Hist 4(1):1995  pp.45-66
The Journals' website is: http://medhist.kams.or.kr/, since it may be that I haven't mentioned articles they have that might help more, but looking at the blank spaces in the article, I'm hoping there might be some information someone else could read, and fill in gaps with?
Hope this is useful to someone, since I'm certainly not intending to spam.
Asfridhr (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful Sources? 

message: I've moved the following text from the Notes section of the article for discussion. I clearly can't stand in the article itself until and unless some references are provided.
 The previous entry in NOTES is a biased study in 2008,stating the lack of evidence of qi, meridian theory and the effectiveness of acupuncture. This  has been thoroughly tested and disproved. The cite of lack of evidence actually lacks any legitimate evidence of its own. There are several in depth studies from American, European and Oriental medical researches showing ample evidence of Qi and meridians in 2017 science. Specifically how to locate and measure them. There are western medical practitioners now using approved "dry needling" acupuncture and proving its competencies, including collecting western medical insurance for the effective treatments. 
 Please hold this space until the Asian Medical communities can refute this lack of evidence from a cite that lacks accurate and timely evidence of its own.
Checking the history, it appears that this note started with this edit by User:50.113.20.7.
This appears to be akin to the discussions that have taken place at the Acupuncture article. Referenced beats unreferenced. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on note