here, I cite from a recent Forbes blog post by Steven Salzberg regarding the actual nonscientific context of 'scientifically contextually published' TCM [see 001., below]:
001. Steven Salzberg writes in "Chinese Medicine Infiltrates Scientific Publishing" (2011-03-28)[saved 2011-03-28]:
"Chinese medicine has its own journal [...a] pseudoscience journal [actually...of] journals that promote anti-scientific theories and otherwise muddy the literature [...] published by BioMed Central, a large scientific publisher [...owned by] Springer Science [...covering] 'acupuncture, tui-na, qi-qong, tai chi quan, energy research' and other nonsense [...based on] mysterious energy fields in the body [...] for those with a high tolerance for quackery [...] TCM is a grab-bag of superstitious practices taken from Chinese history [...] what is this doing in a scientific journal? [...] using the term 'medicine' to describe Qi-gong, acupuncture, and 'energy research' is, to put it bluntly, nonsense [...] corporate leaders seem to care more about expanding their stable than about maintaining the integrity of science. Chinese medicine simply does not belong in the company of respectable scientific journals [hear, hear...] forming a scientific journal whose goal is to validate antiquated, unproven superstitions is simply not science."
Note: naturopathy, too, is published by Elsevier as "science". And TCM is a subset of naturopathy, which calls itself, overall, a branch of medical science while fundamentally based on the science-ejected. This is 2011, and STILL you have less rights and protections as an educational consumer in terms of unfair commerce than someone on a used car lot.