Putting Toad Skin to the Scientific Test
Toad skin and turtle shells aren’t the cures most Americans turn to when they learn they’ve developed cancer. But in China, the market for traditional remedies like these grew 35 percent last year, twice as fast as the overall anti-cancer market. Though the effectiveness of these treatments is unproved, Western doctors, elite medical institutions and pharmaceutical companies are starting to put them to the scientific test.
At first glance, the gap between dried centipede (a traditional Chinese anti-cancer drug) and conventional medicine seems a wide one. But Westerners have adopted Chinese medical practice before. In 1971, New York Times editor and columnist James Reston wrote about his experience with acupuncture after an emergency appendectomy at Beijing’s Anti-Imperialist Hospital. It was the first time that many Americans had ever heard of the procedure, and is widely acknowledged to have done much to legitimize it in the eyes of patients, medical professionals and even insurance companies.
But acupuncture, even if badly administered, is unlikely to pinprick a patient to injury or death. The same cannot be said for some of the drugs associated with traditional Chinese medicine, widely known as TCM. TCM remains very much a craft, largely unregulated and barely vetted by science. Tragic consequences are well documented. A 2013 study of acute liver failure in China found that 17 percent of reported cases were caused by herbal remedies, while a 2014 study found that 42.5 percent of all drug-induced liver failure in China was caused by TCM.
Many of the most popular medicines are known to contain lead, arsenic and other dangerous substances. The use of endangered species is widespread. So is cruelty in harvesting compounds like bear bile from living animals.
China’s TCM industry has resisted disclosing or acknowledging the side effects of their treatments. These problems are well-known to the Chinese public, which remains emotionally split over TCM and its effectiveness despite government efforts to promote it. So far, such concerns don’t appear to have crossed over to Western patients, who seem more grossed out by TCM than frightened of it. But their governments are not so tolerant. The U.K., for example, has largely banned their import while Hong Kong -- a thriving market for TCM -- strictly regulates them.
None of these prohibitions are unreasonable (conventional medicine is also highly regulated), but for the Chinese government, which has long supported TCM as a key cultural export, this is a public policy problem that needs addressing. Export revenue reached $3.13 billion in 2013, and the government has bigger plans. TCM growth was even included in China’s last five-year plan, the national blueprint for economic development.
Achieving those goals, and putting overseas patients at ease, won’t be easy. The most important step is for China’s government-subsidized TCM establishment to put traditional medicine to the same scientific test as any other kind of medicine. It’s been done before. During the Cultural Revolution, for example, a group of Chinese researchers tasked with finding new anti-malarial drugs isolated and extracted artemisinin from qinghao, an herb used for centuries. Today, artemisinin is a leading anti-malarial drug worldwide, and researchers are now investigating its anti-cancer properties.
For TCM to gain international legitimization, its practitioners will have to isolate compounds and subject them academic studies and regulatory approvals in countries where research and approval standards are high. China, with its corrupt FDA and culture of academic misconduct, doesn’t qualify. That’s not cheap, and it’s not quick, but it’s more or less the route that U.S. hospitals and researchers are taking today as they seek to integrate the benefits of TCM into established therapies. The end result may not look like a Chinese medicine cabinet, but the benefits will be far more palatable to scientists, doctors and patients.
To contact the author of this story:
Adam Minter at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Jonathan I Landman at firstname.lastname@example.org
To continue reading this article you must be a Bloomberg Professional Service Subscriber.
If you believe that you may have received this message in error please let us know.